§ Mr. Barnes
I beg to move, in page 53, line 32, at the end, to insert:Provided that where the vehicle is a trailer (other than a superimposed trailer) paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have effect as if the words 'one-seventh,' were substituted for the words 'one-fifth,' where-ever those words occur.In this Subsection the expression 'superimposed trailer,' means a trailer which is normally attached to the vehicle that draws it in such a manner that part of the trailer is superimposed upon that vehicle and that not less than twenty per cent. of any load evenly distributed on the trailer is borne by that vehicle.This deals with compensation for trailers to vehicles. It is pointed out to me that the life of a four-wheeled trailer is necessarily longer that that of a lorry, and I find that that is a case which can be substantiated with regard to normal wear and tear, because the trailer is not always in use. I therefore move this Amendment, which extends the period of depreciation for compensation purposes for four-wheeled trailers from ten years to 15.
Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft (Monmouth)
Some discussion took place upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to make some concession of this nature. I think this goes some way to meet us, and we are grateful to him.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The Temporary-Chairman
The next Amendment which I am calling is that to page 53, line 44, on page 2280.
§ Mr. Barnes
If I might raise a point of Order before we pass on to the next Amendment, Sir Robert, I want the Committee to appreciate that the introduction of these additional Amendments on the Committee stage complicated matters, and it occurs to me that, before we pass on to the Amendments which you have called, we should, perhaps, take the Amendment to Clause 46, page 54, line 41, on page 2258.
§ The Temporary-Chairman
There must be some mistake, because the Amendment which I have called is on page 53, whereas the one referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is on page 54.
§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I beg to move, in page 53, line 44, to leave out from "than," to "the," in line 45, and to insert:five times nor more than seven and a half times.It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take, together with this Amendment, the following one, which, I understand, has also been selected, in page 54, line 7, at the end, to insert:(4) if the transferor elects that this paragraph shall apply, then the Commission shall pay to the transferor compensation representing fifteen times the average net annual profit as defined in the Seventh Schedule to this Act in lieu of compensation payable in accordance with Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this Section:Provided that, notwithstanding such election, the Commission shall be entitled to pay compensation in accordance with Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this Section if the Commission is not reasonably satisfied that the value of the vehicles and other relevant property vesting in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition is equivalent to the average value of the vehicles and other relevant property employed by the undertaking during the years by reference to which the net annual profit is calculated as aforesaid.I think, Sir Robert, with your permission, it would be possible to conduct a discussion on both, and we might, perhaps, vote on them separately.
This Clause deals with the compensation to be paid to road hauliers whose businesses are being taken over by the Government. In our view, the road hauliers are being paid too little by way of compensation. We make no 1637 apology for arguing that point; we are not in the least impressed by the idea put forward a little time ago by the hon. Member for Ecles (Mr. Proctor) that they were employers. We do not see why employers should be paid an unjust price, any more than anybody else in the community. Clause 46 deals, first, with the compensation to be paid for the vehicles, second, with the compensation to be paid for other property, and, third—and this is the point on this Amendment—with the compensation to be paid for the cessation of business, or the loss of goodwill.
Road hauliers have as much right to their goodwill as have any other traders in this country who have built it up. It often takes many years to build up that goodwill. A road haulier's goodwill is different from other people's goodwill because it is something which he cannot take away with him. A doctor who practises in a particular area will lose his patients when he sells his practice, but he takes away his medical skill when he leaves the area. That is not so with a road haulier, because he is going to be taken out of his business and told that he cannot start up another one. These men are being expropriated, and they cannot restart their businesses somewhere else.
I would like to call the attention of the Committee to what is going to happen by way of compensation. Under the proposals put forward by the Government, a gross injustice is to be done to quite a large number of road hauliers. I do not belive that hon. Members opposite, if they appreciated the full facts of this situation, would wish to see that injustice perpetrated. I will give one or two examples, which I hope will appeal to hon. Members opposite. Take a man of 50 years of age—I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has note of this case—who, after 20 years of building up his business, is earning a net income of £1,000 per annum. There is nothing immoral about earning £1,000 a year. [Interruption.] The point seems to be disturbing hon. Members opposite. This man, not after a few months or a year or two, but after 20 years of honest thrift and hard work, and by very often denying himself and ploughing back his profits, has built up his business until he is earning £1,000 a year. Such a man is a good citizen, and no one should complain that he is earning that amount. Under the compensation proposals of this Clause, his net income is to be cut to some- 1638 thing a little over £200 a year. That means that, instead of his £1,000, he will be getting something a little less than, or about the same as, an agricultural worker.
§ Mr. Gallacher
If an agricultural worker gets out of his job, does he continue to draw his wages? What happens to him?
§ Mr. Thorneycroft
No agricultural worker need be out of a job at the present time. This is a case of a road haulier being put out of his job by the deliberate decision of hon. Members opposite. His income will be cut down to just over £200 a year.
§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
Do I understand it rightly that the difference between what he gets now and what he will get afterwards, is that now he works extremely hard for £1,000 a year, and will then get £200 for doing nothing, and can spend the whole of his time earning another £800?
§ Mr. Thorneycroft
It is perfectly true that at 50 years of age he is technically free to draw that sum and to seek other employment. But I should think that his chances of getting other employment are very slender indeed, judging by the number of people who are coming to me these days and who are looking for some kind of job in which to use their skill. Indeed, many of them are trying to find work outside this country. But a road haulier of 50 years of age cannot be asked to go out and start a new career in Canada, or something of that kind. Let me tell hon. Members opposite about one or two other things that will happen to him, and there are many cases of this kind. He has taken out insurance policies, the premiums for which amount to something like £200 or £250 a year—a substantial figure—so that at the end of his life—
§ Mr. Montague (Islington, West)
May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many thousands of pounds it would cost a man of 50 years of age to provide an annuity of £200 a year for the rest of his life?
§ Mr. Thorneycroft
Quite honestly, I do not know the answer, although I have no doubt that I could have the figure looked up. But the fact remains that no argument which the hon. Member can adduce will get away from the fact that, through no agreement of his own, he has been cut 1639 down from a standard of life of £1,000 a year to £200 a year. He will have to abandon the premiums which he has been paying, together with the rights that he would get under such an insurance policy. I make nothing of the fact that his son who hoped to follow him in the business can no longer do so, because it will not be open to any young man to follow his father's footsteps in this business. It is not unnatural that a father should wish to see his son carry on in a business to which he himself has devoted so much hard work in building up. Although that is a bitter thing, it is not something which one can measure in terms of money. There is a road haulage case in Scotland, in which the income of the man concerned is being reduced by six-sevenths. That man had three sons, all of whom were killed in the war, and he has been supporting their children. There is case after case of that kind.
Those great hardships are being caused by the party opposite. They have come to the conclusion—whether it is right or wrong, they must judge for themselves, because they have a large majority—that this is a suitable moment to take over the road haulage industry. We cannot prevent them, because they hold a large majority, but there must be many hon. Members opposite who, while they would stand firmly behind the decision of the Government to take over the industry, would wish to do it in circumstances which would cause the minimum rather than the maximum hardship. Under this Bill the maximum of hardship will be caused.
§ Mr. S. N. Evans (Wednesbury)
I am sure the hon. Member is anxious not to give a wrong impression. What he omits to say is that such people will be compensated for their tangible assets, including any vehicles or property that they possess, so that their income will not be £200 a year, but £200 a year plus what they get from these other tangible assets.
§ Mr. Thorneycroft
I am glad the hon. Member has raised that point, because I assure him that I have not misunderstood the position. I have had the figures worked out, including the tangible assets. Taking into account the figures in respect of vehicles, property and goodwill, etc., the income of a man earning £1,000 a year 1640 will be reduced to just over £200. I do not believe the hon. Member would wish that sort of injustice to be perpetrated. I am not going to argue the technicalities of whether a little more generosity should be extended in respect of the vehicles. The effects of these Amendments are already understood by the Parliamentary Secretary, and probably by many other hon. Members opposite. The effect of the first Amendment would be to increase by a modest amount the number of years' purchase on the net profit. I do not think even the carrying of the Amendment would remove a large portion of the injustice that has been done, but, at any rate, it would be some step towards it.
The effect of the second Amendment, which we are discussing with the Amendment which has been moved, would be to give to the person whose business is being taken away the alternative of selecting a 15 years' purchase rather than have the matter analysed on the basis of vehicles, property and profits. I suggest that one or other of those Amendments should be carried, and I ask hon. Members to think about this matter carefully. If one or other were carried, it would not remove a great deal of the suffering and hardship, but, at least, it would show that hon. Members had some will behind them to avoid injustice and, even though they were going to carry through their Socialist programme, to do it with a minimum of injury and hardship to decent citizens of this country.
§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
I desire to support the plea which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to ensure fairer compensation to those whose road haulage businesses are to be compulsorily purchased. In doing so, I would ask hon. Members opposite to remember the frequently repeated assertions of themselves and of their party that under nationalisation there will be fair compensation. The first factor one has to remember in regard to the purchase of these road haulage businesses is that there is no offer whatever contained in the Bill that the people who are to have their businesses taken away will themselves get some form of employment under the Bill. Hon. Members will remember that, by contrast, when the friendly societies were taken over by the Government, there was at least a pious expression of hope that the services of the officials in the friendly 1641 societies would be used, but in this Bill there is not even a pious expression of hope.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember very well that when we were in Standing Committee, I tried to reconcile the contention which he put forward that three years' purchase was a fair basis and the contention put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that something like from four to seven years was a fair term of purchase. I tried to reconcile that by saying that, in the case of the three years, there was frequently, when the business was sold on the open market, a service agreement. Perhaps he, like myself, has made various inquiries, in the meantime. The inquiries which one can make are necessarily of a somewhat indeterminate nature, because, naturally, on the open market many factors come into play; but my information since the Committee stage is that more than three years would be given where there is no service agreement. I should be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's comments on my previous attempt to reconcile this difference between us.
I would remind hon. Members opposite that this question of purchase for loss of income, and especially for loss of earnings, is a matter which has already received some consideration from the present Government, but in other cases it has received very different consideration from what it is receiving on this occasion. The interesting thing is that the railway stockholders are getting approximately 24 years' purchase, the electricity companies are getting approximately 20 years' purchase, and yet it is suggested that there should be two to five years' purchase for loss of annual earnings on this occasion.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
He gets that amount of purchase, plus the value of his assets, which is a very different thing from the railway companies and the electricity concerns.
§ Mr. Renton
That is true, and I was coming to that point. In this case, we are considering the loss of net profits, which are average earnings, and which are paid for in addition to the tangible assets. The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) is quite right. But what we have to do—I am not sure whether it is a matter to which the Government have seriously applied their 1642 minds—is to find out what the combined result is when we have compensated for loss of average net earnings or net profits, plus loss of tangible assets. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that when he comes to that, especially for the basis of compensation for vehicles which has been worked out under the Bill, he is not likely to find that the road haulage undertakings will, in the combined result, get anything like the 20 years' purchase of the electricity undertakings.
The Minister told us that he anticipated that something like 2,500 road haulage undertakings would be acquired by the Government. The Road Haulage Association took the trouble to get specimen examples of the effect of compulsory transfer on something like 300 of their operators. They rejected some of the examples—about 49—on the ground that they did not think they were clear or accurate in their figures, but they did work on 263 examples. They found that the total capital compensation payable, including the maximum of five times—not twice but actually taking five times—the average annual profit, was £71,730,000. That was what the Government were to pay in British Transport Stock. The Government are going to do extremely well out of it, because they will get in exchange a net earning capacity of more than £8 million. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government are on a jolly good thing here and to that extent the road hauliers who will be taken over on such terms are on a very bad thing indeed. It comes to this, that for the £71 million which the Government are to pay they will acquire a net earning power of nearly 12 per cent. I should congratulate the Government upon a jolly good business deal, forced through this House without the consent of the people concerned. In view of the past pledges of some hon. Gentlemen opposite I would ask them to consider most carefully the somewhat complicated provisions of the Bill.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss)
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I state immediately and briefly the Government's view about this compensation problem. We maintain that, so far from committing any injustice here, if we are erring in any way at all, it is in generosity in the provision which we are 1643 making for compensation to the road hauliers whose businesses the Commission will take over. I say that for several reasons. First, it must be appreciated that the industry is exceedingly unstable. There is a great deal of competition between the industry and other forms of transport, particularly railways. Moreover, within the industry itself there is substantial competition.
Therefore, it is no use looking upon this industry or upon the profits which are being made by any particular firm, especially during the past few years, as in any way stable compared with the profits in longer established industries. This industry is comparatively new and has not yet settled down. There are great fluctuations and variations from year to year within it. It is wholly unstable. In considering the compensation which should be paid by the Commission, therefore, one must, in fairness to the haulage firms concerned, take the instability factor into account.
Let me now indicate to the Committee the proposals which the Government have put forward in the Bill for compensating the hauliers who are being taken over. First, the haulier gets the current replacement value for the vehicles which the Commission will take over, less a certain depreciation.
§ Mr. Strauss
Yes, replacement of the old vehicle by a new vehicle. On other property which may be taken over, such as equipment or garages, he will get the present full market value as at the date of vesting. We say that on the top of that he is entitled to a good will payment, which shall be equivalent to anything between two and five years' average of the profits which he made over a certain period. The first proposal which has been put forward by the hon. Member opposite is that the period of from two to five years is unreasonable. He now suggests that the period should range between five and seven and a half years. He has however failed to put forward any reason for the five years and seven-and-a-half years as against two years and five which we propose.
1644 9.15 p.m.
We consider that a business, which may make a substantial profit one year, if it has been in existence for but a short time, and is paid in respect of goodwill on the basis of a two years' profit, will be very well compensated. It would be utterly unreasonable to suggest that a new firm of that sort, whose prospects are exceedingly uncertain, should be paid a minimum of five years' profit. The period indicated in this provision is a period ranging between two and five years, and it is not only the Government's estimate of the fair goodwill value but the estimate of the industry too. It may happen that a road haulage firm changes hands or that one firm is absorbed by another. Inquiry shows that the normal period which is then paid in respect of good will is three years.
§ Mr. Strauss
In either case, I understand. Three years is the normal period in industry when a firm is purchased. We have said that in certain cases five years will be paid, and we can go between two years and five years.
Following the undertaking which I made during the Committee stage that we would be willing to examine any case of hardship submitted to us by the Road Haulage Association, who had not themselves approached us in this matter at all up to then, we have considered such evidence as they have been able to put before us, but the more evidence they put before us the more just and generous our proposals appear to be, and they have not been able to convince us in any way that our proposals are unfair. We are of course most anxious that in these compensation proposals, as in all others, we shall be absolutely fair to the person who is going to have his business taken from him.
If it is suggested, as it appears to be suggested by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), that the man whose business is taken away should receive. as much as when he was running his business after that business has gone and he is forced to take up some other job, we reply that that is utterly impossible. When his business is taken away from him he will receive in compensation a sum which will produce a smaller income than when he was working hard at running 1645 his own business. However, I will point out one or two facts to the Committee. He receives his compensation whether for two years or five years, in respect of good will tax free. It is a very attractive proposal to a man, particularly to some of the bigger firms if he is to receive five years' profits free of tax. It is a much better proposition than receiving a very unstable and doubtful income year by year and on which he is taxed at the present rate of taxation.
Mr. E. P. Smith
The hon. Gentleman said the average net annual profit. Does that mean the annual profit before or after the reduction of Income Tax?
§ Mr. Strauss
After. I should also like to point out that when a man receives his compensation, whatever the sum, he may, if he desires, invest it in some industry which is as uncertain and speculative as the road haulage industry, in which case he may get his 5 per cent., 7½ per cent. or even 10 per cent. If he desires to invest in a more attractive and remunerative industry there is no need for him to leave his money in British road transport stock. It has been suggested that an alternative and equitable form of compensation would be not to pay the man for his vehicles and property according to any valuation system, but to pay him 15 times his net annual profit. That is the second Amendment on the Order Paper. I suggest to the Committee that this industry is not stable enough for us to be able to put in a multiplier of that sort and to say that it is fair, under all circumstances, to pay a man 15 times his net annual profit. There are enormous fluctuations inside the industry, as I have indicated, and there is a great deal of competition with other industries as well as between individuals in industry itself. The prospects of profit vary with factors which are wholly outside the control of the road haulier. The price of fuel goes up, taxation changes, and there are variations in all sorts of conditions for which the road haulier is in no way responsible.
Therefore the prospects of profit in this industry are exceedingly uncertain and I suggest that it would be quite inappropriate to fix a figure such as 15, which is suggested in the Amendment, by which the annual profit should be multiplied and the haulier receive compensation accordingly. I repeat that the proposals in this 1646 Bill give full value for the assets which the haulier possesses—his lorries and his material—and then give him goodwill based on two to five years' purchase, which is after payment of E.P.T Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman opposite; it is after payment of E.P.T. but before payment of Income Tax. We consider two to five years' purchase of goodwill on that basis as fair according to all standards, and it is fair according to standards at present obtaining in the industry when one firm is purchased by another. For these reasons I submit to the Committee that they should accept the proposal in the Bill and that it would be placing a wholly unfair burden on the future transport organisation if the proposals indicated in these Amendments were adopted. That would mean paying compensation which would be entirely out of keeping with any standard of justice, and I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. Assheton
As the second of these Amendments stands in my name, I should like to make a few observations to the Committee, although I do not wish to suggest that the discussion should necessarily come to an end because I believe that there are several hon. Members on this side who wish to add to the Debate. I do wish that hon. Members opposite would try by some means to put themselves in the place of the road hauliers and just look at it for a minute or two from the point of view of a man who is actually concerned.
§ Mr. Assheton
That is another con sideration, and when the appropriate moment comes perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to try. There are workers of all kinds, and I would suggest to this Committee that these road hauliers are workers—and hard workers too. Do hon Members realise, for example, that this is really an industry of small men? The average number of A and B vehicles licensed is 2.3 per operator. That does show that here we are considering the small man. There is, of course, a certain number of large operators, but broadly speaking, this is an industry of small men. The latest figures we have show that 360,000 vehicles are one-man owned, which proves conclusively that this is an 1647 industry of small men. I want hon. Members to put themselves in the position of these people. It is the duty of the House of Commons, when it is proposing to take away the livelihood of people by law, to be very careful to see that proper arrangements are made so that there is no injustice. It is the duty of the State in such cases to recompense the man who is deprived by Act of Parliament of carrying on his trade or occupation.. There was an exchange just now between my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who asked what happened to the agricultural worker who lost his job. My hon. Friend pointed out that these men are having their jobs taken away by Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. Gallacher
There was a Budget decision to put a heavy tax on tobacco, as a result of which a lot of tobacco workers have been thrown out of work. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that they should have compensation?
§ Mr. Assheton
I am afraid that I am not allowed to make any proposals in this Debate in regard to the Tobacco Duty. We expressed our views pretty strongly on it, and it was clear that we did not accept the proposals of the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member will attend to my argument, and then, if he chooses to speak, we shall have the pleasure of hearing his contribution. I was suggesting that it is the duty of the House of Commons to recompense people when their livelihood is taken away by Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. Sparks
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the duty of the House of Commons to pay these men when their livelihood is taken away. Does he include the contingency where the livelihood of these men is taken away by a capitalist organisation; and does he consider that they should compensate these people?
§ Mr. Assheton
That again is not what I am discussing. What I am saying is that Parliament is taking action to deprive these people of their livelihood. The Government recognise that they ought to be compensated under the terms of this Bill, and I am criticising those terms. Surely hon. Members opposite recognise it is fair that compensation should be paid. 1648 Two hon. Members opposite were heard to say "Hear, hear" when someone was in favour of confiscation; but surely they do not represent the great bulk of Members opposite. What we are discussing is whether the-compensation is fair.
What is being done in this case is to take away the assets of these road hauliers and to pay compensation on earnings based on a small number of years. It is no use thinking that you can compensate people fairly by reference to their assets. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General would think he was being fairly compensated if he was offered the full value of his wig and gown, and books, which are the physical assets of his business. If he were to be deprived of the power to appear in court he would not be much prejudiced, because he is a young and exceptionally active and intelligent man, and would, no doubt, find his way into some other form of business. But what about the road haulier who is 55 or 60 years of age? He is in a very different position in trying to start a new business or in trying to find some new employment. That is what the position of these men will be. They will be thrown out of their livelihood. They do not want to go. It must not be suggested that these people are anxious to sell their businesses to the Government. They are anxious to go on with their businesses and to serve the community. They have built up their firms, and they want to go on doing the job. Hon. Members opposite want to stop them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] All I can say is that the Bill proposes that their businesses should be taken away from them.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)
The vehicles will still be there, and men will still be required to run them. There will still be need for drivers and for men to load the vehicles. If these men still desire to serve the industry, there will be a place for them.
§ Mr. Assheton
I am very glad there will be places for some of these men, but certainly there will not be places for all of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We will see. This industry is to be organised in an entirely different manner from that in which it has been in the past. I ask hon. Members opposite what is to be the position of the aged road haulier? He will 1649 find himself with a small amount of money for his assets and perhaps three years' purchase of his goodwill, and instead of having a decent income on which to rely for the rest of his days, he will find himself without a job, probably, and with a small amount of money to invest, which will produce an income very much less than he is getting now. There are two different proposals before the Committee. One is that there should be a greater number of years' purchase in certain cases for the goodwill of the business when the man is paid compensation for his assets, The other proposal is that he should receive 15 years' purchase of the income of his business and that no account should be taken of the assets. Either of these proposals would be a little better than the proposals put before us by the Government. We do not suggest that either of them would do full justice to the claims of road hauliers, but we suggest that if the matter is left as it is now, gross injustice will be done to them.
§ Mr. C. Williams
I would like to say a few words, as far as two to five years are concerned, on the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said that the present basis in the trade is three years, and that may well be so, but that is on the basis of a voluntary agreement, and there is a very great deal of difference between a voluntary agreement and compulsion. Under the Bill, it will be a question of turning a man out of his trade and profession, turning him away from something which he knows well to something which he does not know. If there were an elderly lawyer who was rather sleepy at the age of 65, and it were suddenly said to him that he must be a watercress picker, or something of that sort, he would not like it a bit; but the fact is that, under this Measure, the Government are depriving honourable people of their profession, whether those people like it or not. I think the Parliamentary Secretary made out a case for the two years at the bottom. He said this was a fair and generous allowance for someone who had been in business only a year or two. I accept that, but if we accept that as being right, five years is far too low for the upper limit. I submit that five years is far too low for a man who has been in the industry for a considerable time and has developed his business to a considerable extent.
1650 Moreover, in a matter of compensation of this sort, I think one ought not to be tied down so closely as the Bill does in this case. May I ask the Government whether, if we agree to the two years as a basis—and probably it has a good deal to be said in favour of it—they cannot move the upper limit to 6½ or 7½. The hon. Gentleman said, and we have heard it many times at great length from Members of the Government on almost every Bill, "If any special case of hardship comes along, we will give it fair consideration." That is not the way to legislate. The Government should put in the Bill clearly what is to be the rate of compensation, and not leave it to someone, somewhere else, to lay down what are or are not questions of hardship. I hope that, from that point of view, the Government will think again, at any rate about the upper limit, because, if their case is at all sound, the higher grade is much below what it ought to be.
§ Mr. Oliver Poole
I should not have intervened in the Debate—I was not here when the original speeches on this Amendment were made and I apologise for that—but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major C. Poole). The hon. and gallant Member and I have certain things in common, but we have not the same views on transport and compensation, and I hope he will forgive me if I take up the point which he made. He said that all the road hauliers would be offered adequate jobs under the new Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When my right hon. Friend said that was not so, he was greeted with sneers, as one expects from the benches opposite. Surely that is the whole crux of the question. If we are to assess the value of a business purely on the goodwill—which is what this amounts to—it is based on the fact that the man who sells is a willing seller.
If, in fact, it were true that all those engaged in the managerial and ownership side of the road haulage industry were to be offered jobs with adequate remuneration under the new Commission, there would be a little objection to the new compensation arrangements. But it is obvious that they will not be, and that many of the people, owing to age or unsuitability for employment, or unwillingness to take the type of employment offered by the Commission, cannot go on 1651 earning their living in the industry. What are they to do when the compensation paid to them is not only inadequate but vastly inferior to the compensation paid in other branches of the industry? We have had no assurance from the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary as to the type of employment these people would be offered. That is the crux of the arrangement. No one can possibly pretend that, with a total absence of any guarantee of employment for these people, the present compensation arrangements are adequate.
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
We can understand that the Committee may feel, at first sight, some disquiet as to why so many of my hon. Friends and I feel it necessary to urge this point upon them. I think that a moment's thought will make them realise that from the human aspect this is one of the crucial points of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that in his considered opinion the terms offered to the road hauliers are not only adequate but generous. Perhaps I might be permitted, for one moment, to stray a very short distance outside the Amendment, in order to give the Committee a picture of the whole terms. It is compensation for vehicles based on new values with a 20 per cent. depreciation, coupled with this two to five years' purchase of profits. I bring that in only so that the Committee will have at the backs of their minds the extraordinary basis of vehicle compensation when compared with the state of the market in secondhand vehicles today, and I will say no more about it.
I now come to the two to five years and the point which the Parliamentary Secretary put before the Committee. In April, 1947, he seriously puts to this Committee that the road transport industry is an unstable industry. I cannot understand how someone who usually chooses his arguments with such care and aptitude has the effrontery to put that argument before a body which knows conditions, as we do here. For the last hour we have had complaints from the Minister. and from the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) about everyone who has spoken on railway compensation. What has been the burden of their song? It has been: "Road competition was so great that you cannot expect railways to come into the picture at all." Then, of course. when 1652 we come to road transport compensation they change the bowling, the slow to medium with a leg break comes on, and they say: "Well, of course, road transport is an unstable industry." Why were the railways so worried? This is quite the most extraordinary argument that has been put before us tonight.
Since the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and since the procedure under that Act has been worked out before the relevant tribunals, we know that the industry, far from being unstable, has been the very opposite. The effect has been, that if there is an "A" licence holder giving good service on his designated route, there is not the slightest fear that he would lose his business from that angle. What is the other angle from which he might lose his business? From a decline in the general provision of trade. Again, on any other Debate on any other matter before this Committee hon. and right hon. Members opposite would be getting up and saying: "We are going to produce an expansionist and full employment economy; and, of course, in such an economy there will be work for all, even for the road haulier." Today, of course, when they are seeking to diminish the compensation of the road haulier, the expansionist background to their economic theory is conveniently forgotten.
§ Mr. Sparks
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about instability, is he not overlooking the very essential point that it also includes driving the existing small hauliers out of business by the larger haulage interests?
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I heard the hon. Member say that. I have myself seen this operate from its inception. If the hon. Member cares to look at the reports of the cases in these matters he will see on what I base my interest. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give me one concrete example where a small road haulier has been driven out of business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right for hon. Gentlemen to make noises of that sort, but it does not help in the matter. We have seen this operate. We know what has happened. There have been cases in which big firms—big firms like Pickford's and Hay's Wharf—not small people, at all, but big firms—have been acquired out and out by railway companies. I say that, except in these cases, the buying out has 1653 been of the greatest advantage to those who built up the businesses. I have seen this industry operate. I have opposed road hauliers; I have acted for road hauliers; I have seen that machinery going on, and I have seen throughout the business progressing from strength to strength.
I do not like to indulge in anything emotional when standing at this Box, but I do say—because it is my honest belief—that it was the human material on which this industry was built up which has made it grow from strength to strength. When I talk of the small men who built up this industry, coming out of the first world war and using their gratuities to build up family business, with the co-operation of their sons, their daughters, and their wives, hon. Gentlemen opposite know that I am not indulging in heroics; and they know I am describing what actually took place. My hon. Friends sitting behind me, hon. Gentlemen opposite and I can find hundreds of friends in this industry of whom every remark of mine is true.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay
Is it not the fact that the number of years' purchase, when goodwill is being paid in this industry, is three or five years in the ordinary market, and is that not proof, to people who know, that its prospects are very unstable?
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. I do not know whether it was in one of those few intervals when he left Committee Room 14 to find tea from the tea tray conveniently approximate that I made this point before. There were very few intervals like that, for the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee Room practically the whole time. I hope he will not mind my joke. But I put this point before. Perhaps I may put it once again. I am accepting the position of this composite compensation, that is, compensation for assets plus good will—but I would remind the Committee—and I would not have gone over it, but that the hon. Gentleman asked me to develop this point—that the more modern way of assessing compensation for businesses, which has been generally accepted for the last 20 years, is to take the net value of the assets plus a lower period of purchase of profits, because that allows for the effective capital value of the assets. Every hon. Gentleman who was on the Committee will remember I made the point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) referred to 1654 it a moment or two ago, that we get, roughly, three classes of business on that system of valuation, with the lowest range up to about three years, the middle range somewhere from four to 10, and the special range of the high priorities businesses above that figure. That is plus assets plus effective capital value of assets. I was putting the road transport businesses in the second range of that valuation scale, and I think I am right.
I think that if the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) or anyone else will try to separate the different types of businesses—they can take tobaccos, breweries, aeroplane works, anything else that comes into their minds—and on a general view of valuation, they will agree it is a very conservative claim to make for the industry that, on that basis, it ought to be in the middle range. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is moving this Amendment to increase the number of years up to the top figure of seven and a half. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has clarified his original misinterpretation of the tax position, but what we have not had from the Parliamentary Secretary is any answer to the point made almost at the beginning of this Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.
The Parliamentary Secretary said the Government had considered what had been submitted by the industry, and that had, if anything, strengthened the view which they originally formed. It would assist us in the weight which we are to attach to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary if he had given some consideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. The Committee will remember that what my hon. Friend said was that, of the businesses considered, that is, the 263 businesses, less than 49 which were rejected for incompleteness, giving a total of 214, the total capital compensation receivable, that is, for both assets, taking the top period of five years, was £71 million, and the average net overall earnings of the proprietors was £8,300,000. We can look at that in various ways. In one sense, we are getting an overall earning power of 11.5 per cent. of the capital compensation. Put another way, we are taking it at nine years' purchase—for that figure includes the amount of assets compensation—but we have to compare that nine years with the 24 years' purchase for 1655 railway earning power and 20 years purchase for electricity.. What is the answer to that? There are the figures submitted by the industry—£71 million compensation at the top scale earning power of £8 a year. On what basis can it be fair to deal with the road transport industry in that way?
I have tried religiously not to go outside the scope of this Amendment, but we on this side of the Committee cannot help having in our minds the background that this Bill does not suggest in any way the method by which the co-ordination or integration of the road transport industry is going to be achieved. That we have never had, although we have asked for it for 4½ months. We have tried, and have completely failed; in fact, the Minister prides himself now on being totally ignorant of the basis on which the charges for transport to industry are to be made, and he said, in effect, "Why should I bother about it? I appoint an executive, and they go to the Commission, and the Commission will go to the Tribunal, and
§ the Tribunal will come to me, and I will send it back to the Tribunal, and, in a year or nine months, or some period like that, we shall eventually know what the basis of the charges for transport will be."
§ The applicability of that to this Amendment is that it is an easy matter not to bother about the basis of transport charges to industry if one does not care whether road transport is going to continue or not. From the views that have been expressed, and from the cynical carelessness of the Government with regard to the position of road hauliers, it is quite clear to us on this side of the Committee that they do not care about the road haulage industry It is for that reason that we shall protest on this occasion, and on every occasion given to us in the future, against the shocking way in which the industry has been treated.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 130.1659
|Division No. 149.]||AYES.||[9.56 p.m|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Chetwynd, G. R||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Cobb, F A||Gaitskell, H. T. N.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Cocks, F S||Gallacher, W.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Collick, P||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Collindridge, F.||Gibbins, J.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Colman, Miss G. M||Gibson, C. W.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Comyns, Dr. L.||Gilzean, A.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Corlett, Dr. J||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)|
|Bacon, Miss A||Corvedale, Viscount||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)|
|Baird. J.||Cove, W. G.||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Balfour, A.||Crawley, A.||Grey, C. F.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Crossman, R. H. S||Grierson, E.|
|Barstow, P. G||Daggar, G||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Barton, C||Daines, P||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)|
|Battley, J. R||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Guy, W. H.|
|Belcher, J. W.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Hale, Leslie|
|Benson, G||Davies, S. O (Merthyr)||Hall, W. G.|
|Berry, H.||Deer, G.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R|
|Beswick, F.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Bing, G H C||Hardy, E. A.|
|Binns, J||Delargy, H. J||Harrison, J.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Dobbie, W.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Blyton, W. R||Dodds, N. N.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Boardman, H.||Donovan, T.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Dumpleton, C. W.||Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Dye, S.||Hicks, G.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Edelman, M.||Holman, P.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||House, G|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Hoy, J.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Burden, T. W.||Fairhurst, F.||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Farthing, W. J.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Castle, Mrs B. A.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Hynd, J. B. (AttercIiffe)|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Follick, M.||Irving, W. J.|
|Champion, A. J||Foot, M. M.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Chater, O.||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Janner, B.|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Oliver, G. H.||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)||Paget, R. T.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A C. (Shipley)||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Swingler, S.|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Palmer, A. M. F||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Pargiter, G A.||Symonds, A. L|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Parker, J.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Keenan, W||Parkin, B. T.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Kenyon, C.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)|
|King, E, M.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E||Pearson, A.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Kinley, J.||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Lang, G||Perrins, W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Platts-Mills, J. F. E.||Tiffany, S.|
|Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Titterington, M. F.|
|Leslie, J. R.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Tolley, L.|
|Levy, B. W.||Price, M. Philips||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Pritt, D. N.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Proctor, W. T.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Pryde, D. J||Usborne, Henry|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Vernon, Maj. W. F|
|Longden, F.||Ranger, J||Viant, S. P.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Rankin, J||Walkden, E|
|McAdam, W.||Reid, T (Swindon)||Walker, G. H|
|McAllister, G.||Rhodes, H||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|McEntee, V. La T||Richards, R.||Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|McGhee, H. G.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M||Warbey, W. N.|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Robens, A||Watkins, T. E.|
|Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|McLeavy, F||Robertson, J J (Berwick)||Weitzman, D.|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Royle, C.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Mallalieu, J. P W.||Sargood, R||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Scollan, T||West, D. G.|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Scott-Elliot, W||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Shackleton, E. A A.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Marquand, H. A||Sharp, Granville||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Mathers, G.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Wilkes, L.|
|Mellish, R J.||Shurmer, P||Wilkins, W. A|
|Messer, F.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Simmons, C. J.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R||Skeffington, A. M.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Mitchison, G. R||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Monslow, W||Skinnard, F. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Montague, F.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Moody, A. S.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)||Williamson, T.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Willis, E.|
|Morley, R.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield. C.)||Solley, L. J||Wise, Major F. J|
|Moyle, A.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F||Woodburn, A.|
|Nally, W.||Sparks, J. A||Wyatt, W|
|Naylor, T. E.||Stamford, W||Yates, V. F.|
|Neal, H. (Claycross)||Steele, T.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Stephen, C.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J (Derby)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewel.|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Digby, S. W.||Hope, Lord J.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Dodds-Parker, A. D||Howard, Hon. A.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon R||Drayson, G. B.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)|
|Astor, Hon M.||Drewe, C.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hurd, A.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H||Eccles, D. M.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)|
|Beechman, N. A||Eden, Rt. Hon. A||Jeffreys, General Sir G|
|Birch, Nigel||Erroll, F. J.||Keeling, E. H.|
|Boothby, R||Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Kerr, Sir J. Graham|
|Bowen, R.||Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Bower, N.||Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Lancaster, Col. C. G|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M||Langford-Holt, J.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. W.||Gates, Maj E. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.||George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)||Lennox-Boyd, A T|
|Bullock, Capt. M||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Lipson, D. L.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Byers, Frank||Grant, Lady||Lucas, Major Sir J.|
|Channon, H.||Granville, E. (Eye)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G||Gridley, Sir A.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Grimston, R. V.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Maclay, Hon. J S|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Haughton, S. G.||Macpherson, Maj N. (Dumfries)|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.|
|Cuthbert. W. N.||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Manningham-Buller, R. E|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Hollis, M. C.||Marshall, D (Bodmin)|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)||Maude, J. C.|
|Medlicott, F.||Roberts, Mal. P. G. (Ecclesall)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Mollor, Sir J.||Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Morris, Hopkin (Carmarther)||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F|
|Morrison, Rt. Han. W. S. (Cirencester)||Ropner, Col. L.||Vane, W. M. F|
|Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Nield, B. (Chester)||Sanderson, Sir F.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Noble, Comdr. A. H. P||Shephard, S. (Newark)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Nutting, Anthony||Smiles, Lt.-Col, Sir W||Wheatley, Colonel M. J|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Smithers, Sir W.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Peto, Brig C. H. M||Spearman, A. C. M.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Pickthorn, K||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)||York, C.|
|Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.||Sutcliffe, H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Commander Agnew and|
|Renton, D.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)||Mr. Studholme.|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Teeling, Willlam|
§ Mr. Assheton
I beg to move, in page 54, line 7, at the end, to insert:(4) if the transferor elects that this paragraph shall apply, then the Commission shall pay to the transferor compensation representing fifteen times the average net annual profit as defined in the Seventh Schedule to this Act in lieu of compensation payable in accordance with subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this Section:Provided that, notwithstanding such election, the Commission shall be entitled to pay compensation in accordance with Subsections
§ (1), (2) and (3) of this Section if the Commission is not reasonably satisfied that the value of the vehicles and other relevant property vesting in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition is equivalent to the average value of the vehicles and other relevant property employed by the undertaking during the years by reference to which the net annual profit is calculated as aforesaid."
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 128; Noes, 293.1663
|Division No. 150.]||AYES||[10.9 p.m|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Grimston, R. V.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M|
|Amory, D Heathcoat||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Ponsonby, Col. C E|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Houghton, S. G||Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hinohingbrooke, Viscount||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)|
|Beechman, N. A||Hollis, M. C.||Renton, D.|
|Birch, Nigel||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Boothby, R||Hope, Lord J||Roberts, Maj. P G. (Ecclesall)|
|Bowen, R.||Howard, Hon. A.||Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)|
|Bower, N.||Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Hurd, A||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P G T.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Bullock, Capt. M||Keeling, E. H||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Butcher, H. W.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Smith, E P. (Ashford)|
|Byers, Frank||Lambert, Hon. G||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Channon, H.||Lancaster, Col. C G||Spearman, A C. M.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G||Langford-Holt, J.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lennox-Boyd, A. [...].||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Lipson, D. L||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Low, Brig. A. R. W.||Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Teeling, William|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Digby, S. W.||Mackeson, Brig. H.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F|
|Drayson, G. B.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Drewe, C.||Macpherson, Maj N. (Damfries)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Walker-Smith, D|
|Eccles, D. M.||Manningham-Buller, R. E||Ward, Hon. G. R|
|Eden, Rt. Hon A||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Erroll, F. J.||Maude, J. C.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Medlicott, F.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Foster, J. C. (Northwich)||Mellor, Sir J.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fyte, Rt Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Morrison, Rt. Han. W S (Cirencester)||York, C|
|George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.|
|George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)||Nield, B. (Chester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Gomme-Duncan, Cal A||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P||Commander Agnew and|
|Grant. Lady||Nutting, Anthony||Mr. Studholme.|
|Granville, E. (Eye)||Orr-Ewing, I. L|
|Gridley, Sir A.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Follick, M.||Mothers, G.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Foot, M. M||Mellish, R J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Messer, F.|
|Alpass, J H.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Middleton, Mrs. L.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Gaitskell, H. T. N||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R|
|Attewell, H. C.||Gallacker, W.||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R||Ganley, Mrs. C. S||Monslow, W.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Gibbins, J.||Montague, F.|
|Bacon, Miss A||Gibson, C. W||Moody, A. S|
|Baird J||Gilzean, A.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Balfour, A.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Morley, R.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Morris, Lt.-Col. H, (Sheffield C.)|
|Barstow, P. G.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Moyle, A.|
|Barton, C.||Grenfell, D. R||Nally, W.|
|Battley, J. R.||Grey, C. F.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Grierson, E.||Neal, H. (Claycross)|
|Belcher, J. W.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)|
|Benson, G.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Noel-Buxton, Lady|
|Berry, H||Guy, W H.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Beswick, F||Haire, John E (Wycombe)||Paget, R. T.|
|Bing, G H C.||Hale, Leslie||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)|
|Binns, J.||Hall, W. G.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Blenkinsop, A||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. P.||Palmer, A. M. F|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hannan, W (Maryhill)||Pargiter, G. A|
|Boardman, H.||Hardy, E. A||Parker, J|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Harrison, J.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Pearson, A|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Herbison, Miss M.||Peart, Capt. T. F.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Hewitson, Capt. M||Perrins, W.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Hicks, G.||Platts-Mills, J. F. E|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Hobson, C R||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)|
|Brown George (Belper)||Holman, P.||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Brown, T J. (Ince)||Holmes, H. E (Hemsw[...]orth)||Price, M. Philips|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||House, G||Pritt, D. N.|
|Burden, T. W.||Hoy, J.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)||Hubbard, T||Pryde, D. J.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pursey, Cmdr. H|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Hutchinson, H L (Rusholme)||Ranger, J.|
|Champion, A. J||Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)||Rankin, J|
|Chater, D.||Hynd, J B (Attercliffe)||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Irving, W. J.||Rhodes, H.|
|Cobb, F. A.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A||Richards, R.|
|Cocks, F S||Janner, B.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M|
|Collick, P.||Jay D. P. T.||Robens, A.|
|Collindridge, F.||Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Colman Miss G. M||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C, (Shipley)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Comyns Dr L||Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)||Royle, C.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Sargood, R|
|Corlett Dr. J||Jones, J. H (Bolton)||Scollan, T|
|Corvedale Viscount||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Scott-Elliot, W|
|Cove W G||Keenan, W.||Shackleton, E. A A|
|Crawley, A.||Kenyon, C.||Sharp, Granville|
|Crossman, R H. S||King, E. M.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Daggar, G||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E||Shurmer, P.|
|Daines, P.||Kinley, J.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lang, G.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Davies Harold, (Leek)||Lee, Miss J (Cann[...]ock)||Skeffington-Lodge, T C|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leslie, J. R||Skinnard, F W.|
|Davies S. O. (Merthyr)||Levy, B. W||Smith, C (Colchester)|
|Deer, G.||Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lewis, J (Bolton)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Delargy, H. J||Lindgren, G. S||Solley, L. J.|
|Diamond, J||Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)|
|Dobbie, W.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M||Sorensen, R. W|
|Dodds, N. N||Lengden, F.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F|
|Donovan, T.||Lyne, A. W||Sparks, J. A|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||McAdam, W||Stamford, W|
|Dumpleton, C. W||McAllister, G.||Steele, T.|
|Dye, S.||McEntee, V. La T[...]||Stephen, C.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McGhee, H. G.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Edelman, M.||Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Stress, Dr B.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mackay R W G (Hull. N.W.)||Stubbs, A E.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||McLeavy, F||Summerskilt, Dr. Edith|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Swingler, S|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Mallalieu, J. P W.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Mann, Mrs. J.||Symonds, A. L.|
|Fairhurst, F.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Farthing, W. J||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Marquand, H. A||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Wallace, H, W. (Walthamstow. E.)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Warbey, W. N||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Thurtle, E.||Watkins, T E.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Tiffany, S.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)||Williamson, T.|
|Titterington, M. F.||Weitzman, D.||Willis, E.|
|Tolley, L.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)||Wills, Mrs. E. A|
|Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)||Wise, Major F. J|
|Turner-Samuels, M.||West, D. G.||Woodburn, A|
|Ungoed-Thomas, L.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Wyatt, W|
|Usborne, Henry||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W||Yates, V. F.|
|Vernon, Maj. W. F||Wilkes, L.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Viant, S. P.||Wilkins, W. A||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Walkden, E||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Walker, G. H||Willey, O. G (Cleveland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.|
|Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell|
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice)
I beg to move, in page 54. line 41, at the end, to insert:Provided that in calculating the compensation payable under this Subsection—This Amendment is designed to meet a point which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) on the Committee stage in the case where there was a vehicle which was subject to hire purchase agreement. It was represented that in those circumstances the Clause as it was would operate rather unfairly against the hirer. As hon. Gentlemen know, the hirer pays an interest charge for the credit until the time he is ready to pay the purchase price of the vehicle. As the Clause stands, he is paid the compensation value of the vehicle, less
- (a) there shall be ascertained what sum out of the total amount paid or to be paid under the agreement represents the charge made by the owner of the property for the credit given under the agreement; and
- (b) the said amount remaining, to be paid shall for the purposes of this Subsection be deemed to be reduced by so much of the sum ascertained under paragraph (a) of this proviso as bears to the whole of that sum the same proportion that the part of the period by the expiration of which payment of the total amount due under the agreement must be completed falling after the date of transfer bears to the whole of that period."
§ the full amount which is still outstanding under the hire purchase agreement when the vehicle is taken over. As that amount which is still outstanding includes the interest charge, it will be deducted from the compensation and he is, in effect, paying interest for a credit which he does not enjoy. The Amendment lays down that there has to be calculated separately the whole interest charge payable under the agreement. Then we find how much of that charge is referable to the period still to run when the vehicle is taken over and that part of the interest chargeable to the general charge. The result of that is that the hirer does not pay an interest charge for the credit which he has not handled. All that is taken from his compensation is the amount of the real purchase price still due under the agreement. That meets the argument that was advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As its object is to remove an unfairness and as it does remove that unfairness, I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 133.1667
|Division No. 151.]||AYES||[10.22 p.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Beswick, F||Chamberlain, R. A|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Bing, G. H. C||Champion, A. J|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Binns, J.||Chater, D|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Blenkinsop A||Chetwynd, G R|
|Alpass, J. H.||Blyton, W. R.||Cobb, F. A|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Boardman, H||Cocks, F. S|
|Attewell, H. C||Bottomley, A. G.||Collick, P.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R||Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Collindridge, F.|
|Austin, H. L.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Colman, Miss G. M|
|Bacon, Miss A||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Comyns, Dr. L.|
|Baird, J.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.|
|Balfour, A.||Bramall, Major E. A||Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W)|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Brook, D. (Halifax)||Corlett, Dr. J|
|Barstow, P. G||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Corvedale, Viscount|
|Barton, C.||Brown, George (Belper)||Cove, W. G|
|Battley, J. R.||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Crawley, A.|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Bruce, Major D. W T||Crossman, R. H. S|
|Belcher, J. W.||Burden, T. W.||Daggar, G|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S.)||Davies, Edward (Burslem)|
|Berry, H.||Castle, Mrs. B A||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E||Sharp, Granville|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Kinley, J.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lang, G.||Shurmer, P.|
|Deer, G.||Lee, F. (HuIme)||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lea, Miss J. (Cannock)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Delargy, Captain H. J||Leslie, J. R||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Diamond, J||Levy, B. W.||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C|
|Dobbie, W.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Skinnard, F W|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lewis, J (Bolton)||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Donovan, T.||Lindgren,. G. S.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Lipton, Lt.-Col M||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Dumpleton, C. W||Longden F||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Dye, S.||Lyne, A. W.||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McAdam, W.||Solley, L. J.|
|Edelman, M.||McAllister, G||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||McEntee, V. La T||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||McGhee, H. G.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whilechapel)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Stamford, W|
|Evans, E (Lowestoft)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Steele, T.|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||MoLeavy, F.||Stephen, C.|
|Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)|
|Fairhurst, F.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Farthing, W. J.||Mann, Mrs. J||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Summerskill, Dr. Edit[...]t.|
|Follick. M.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Swingler, S.|
|Foot, M. M.||Marquand, H. A||Sylvester, G O|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Mathers, G||Symonds, A. L.|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Mellish, R. J.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N.||Messer, F.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Gallacher, W.||Middleton, Mrs. L||Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R||Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)|
|Gibbirrs J.||Mitchison, Major G. R||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Monslow, W||Therneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Montague, F||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)||Moody, A. S.||Tiffany, S|
|Greenwood, A W J. (Heywood)||Morgan, Dr. H. B||Titterington, M. F|
|Grenfell, D. R||Morley, R||Tolley, L.|
|Grey, C. F.||Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G|
|Grierson, E.||Moyle, A.||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Nally, W||Ungoed-Thomas,
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Usborne, Henry|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Vernon, Maj. W F|
|Guy, W. H.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)||Viant, S P|
|Haire, John E (Wycombe)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Walkden, E.|
|Hale, Leslie||Oliver, G. H.||Walker, G. H|
|Hall, W G.||Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)||Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Palmer, A. M F||Warbey, W. N|
|Hardy, E. A||Pargiter, G. A||Watkins, T E.|
|Harrison, J||Parker, J||Webb, M (Bradford. C.)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Parkin, B. T.||Weitzman, D|
|Henderson, A (Kingswinford)||Paton Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Paton, J (Norwich)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Pearson, A.||West, D. G|
|Hewitson, Capt M||Peart, Capt. T. F||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Hicks, G.||Perrins, W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Hobson, C. R||Platts-Mills, J.
||Wigg, Col. G. E|
|Holman, P||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Wilkes, L.|
|Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)||Popplewell, E.||Wilkins, W. A|
|House, G.||Porter, E (Warrington)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Hoy, J.||Price, M. Philips||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Hudson, J H (Ealing, W.)||Pritt, D N.||Williams, D J (Neath)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Proctor, W. T||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Pryde, D. J||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)||Ranger, J||Williamson, T|
|Irving, W J.||Rankin, J||Willis, E.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Wills, Mrs. E A.|
|Janner, B.||Rhodes, H||Wise, Major F J|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Richards, R.||Woodburn, A|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M||Wyatt, W|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)||Robens, A||Yates, V. F.|
|Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)||Roberts, Goronwy, (Caernarvonshire)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Robertsor. J J. (Berwick)||Younger, Hon Kenneth|
|Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Royle, C.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Sargood, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Keenan, W.||Scollan, T.||Mr. Michael Stewart and|
|Kenyon, C.||Scott-Elliot, W.||Mr. Daines|
|King, E. M||Shackleton, E A A|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Astor, Hon. M.||Beamish, Maj. T. V. H|
|Amory, D Heathcoat||Baldwin, A. E.||Beechman, N A|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon R||Barlow, Sir J||Birch, Nigel|
|Bowen, R.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Pickthorn, K|
|Bower, N.||Hope, Lord J.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Howard, Hon. A.||Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Hurd, A.||Renton, D.|
|Butcher, H. W||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Byers, Frank||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)|
|Channon, H.||Keeling, E. H.||Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lambert, Hon. G.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Lancaster, Col. C. G||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Langford-Holt, J.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Crowder, Capt. J. F. E||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Lipson, D. L.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Digby, S. W.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Stanley, Rt. Hon O.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D||Low, Brig. A. R. W.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Drewe, C.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Studholme, H. G|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||McCallum, Maj. D.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)|
|Erroll, F. J.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Teeling, William|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Wadsworth, G.|
|George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)||Maude, J. C.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Medlicott, F||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Mellor, Sir J.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Grant, Lady||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Granville, E. (Eye)||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Gridley, Sir A.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Nield, B. (Chester)||York, C.|
|Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P|
|Haughton, S. G.||Nutting, Anthony||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Commander Agnew and|
|Hogg, Hon. Q||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Major Conant.|
|Hollis, M. C||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
§ 10.33 p.m.