§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
The first Amendment which has been selected is that in page 1, line 16.
§ Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I presume that you are not calling my Amendments—in line 2, after the first "the", insert "occasional" and after the first "and" insert "partial"—because of the Ruling that the enacting words:Be it enacted by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commonsetc., are not subject to Amendment. But that Ruling was given 15 years ago when Parliament was free, and surely it ought 1817 not to be strictly applied today, when, owing to the Guillotine, our consent is only partial.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have not called the hon. Member's Amendments because they have not been selected by Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It would be out of Order to make a point of Order on Amendments that are not being called.
§ Mr. Maclay
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome but the position as I understand it is that the hon. Member was not allowed to make his point of Order because it was not a point of Order. May we get that Ruling absolutely clear, because it is a very important principle?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The clear answer is that one cannot question the selection of Amendments. The two Amendments in question have not been selected and, therefore, one cannot make a point of Order or enter into any discussion of them.
§ Mr. Assheton
May I ask, as a matter of confirmation, whether it is in fact permissible to put down an Amendment to that part of the Bill?
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "shall", to insert:be required to give his exclusive services to the Commission and subject thereto shall.At 8.15 p.m. on the second of the three Allotted Days we now start the Report stage of this Bill. We have until two o'clock tomorrow morning, and then five hours tomorrow, and there are still some 350 Amendments to be dealt with. It therefore behoves me and everyone who speaks, to try to make our remarks as brief as possible, but I do not think anyone will begrudge me at any rate this one sentence, when I say how grossly and wholly inadequate that time is for matters which touch so nearly the lives of millions of people in this country.
The object of my Amendment is that the five members of the Commission should be required to give their exclusive services 1818 to the Commission. It is necessary that I should indicate just a very small amount of the background to this Amendment. The original suggestion of the Opposition was that the number in the Commission should be increased from five to a greater number and that, with that greater number, it would be possible to have some whole-time members and some part-time members. That proposal was rejected at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and, therefore, we are driven to contemplate only a five member Commission. We say that a Commission of five members cannot do its job, unless the members are obliged to give their whole time to it.
I ask this House to consider what the Commission has to do. Let us take first merely its supervisory work. According to the right hon. Gentleman it is to be a policy-planning body. If it is to be a reality and not a mere mouthpiece of Whitehall the policy and planning work is something stupendous. Let us take, for a moment, the three great problems which it is the professed objective of this Bill to solve—co-ordination and integration of the forms of transport, that is rail, road, docks and then London transport, and the hotel branch taken into a sort of subsidiary position to be dealt with at the same time. That is a tremendous job, but the right hon. Gentleman has not indicated the basis on which it is to be done. That is to be left to this Commission, and is, in itself, a colossal task.
Then there is the question of the geographical basis. The Commission has to engage in geographical planning, which the functional executives are to work. Again, that is an enormous task. I would only make reference to the allocation of road haulage to long-distance needs. That will not work unless the allocation is done with great care, and is decentralised. I do not believe it will work except in small units, but assuming I am wrong, there must be local adjustment, and that is another task this Commission will have to do. On the question of charges, the right hon. Gentleman has said many times, mainly in answer to pressure from myself, that the Commission is to put forward schemes for charges. These schemes will be passed to the Tribunal, and will then go back to the Minister, and so on. Take this problem alone. I put it to hon. Members who approach this matter from a very different point of view: What are 1819 the right standards for road transport rates, which are bound to be considered? What are the proper factors in regard to operational costs, and how much is to be allowed in future for raw materials, and what are the shortages going to be? The Commission has to be responsible for all these matters.
I have merely dealt with three of the major problems, but as everyone knows, there will be 5o others to be dealt with. It would be a stupendous task even if we stopped there, but of course it does not stop there. Let us take the question of staffing. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us what sort of staff he contemplates the Commission should have. Unless it is to be a mere affirmatory mouthpiece of the Ministry of Transport —and no one puts that forward as its conception—it must have a staff running into hundreds. This is the head of this public corporation, which is to be a great public trading corporation—that is the conception—and it must therefore have staff. This Commission of five will have to be responsible for organising the staff and seeing that it has the right people. I ask hon. Members to approach this matter from the point of view of the facts. In 1923, the four main line railway companies came into operation. Many people said that they were too big. If my recollection is right, the L.M.S. is the biggest railway company in the world. But imagine trying to run the four main line companies as one unit. Hon. Members opposite have said many hard things about the boards of directors of railway companies, but I would put this point in their favour. Broadly speaking, the directors were selected because they came from different parts of the area the company served, and they represented the big business interests which might send traffic to the company. There may have been defects which are more apparent to hon. Members opposite, but if did provide a geographical basis, and some expert knowledge of industry in respect of the different parts of the country the directors represented.
I ask the House to consider the responsibilities in regard to road haulage. Let hon. Members remember that after this Bill is passed, no goods can be moved more than 25 miles except by the Commission or by permission of the Commission. I am asking the House to con- 1820 sider the large amount of responsibility there is for all the hauls over 25 miles. Then there are the docks and harbours, and the hotels, which are being taken over at the time when tourist traffic is put forward as a serious contributor to our dollar exchange. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider this public corporation strictly from their own point of view. They must agree that a public corporation has to have the most severe tests as to efficiency, and the personnel it employs. It is a more severe test than any private firm could have, and unless it is a severe test the corporation must fail like inefficient private firms have failed. Consistency would demand that hon. Members be the last to prescribe any lower standards of efficiency for the public corporation.
These five people are to be responsible for running this corporation, and apparently they are to be free to hold other occupations. I agree that they are not to be conflicting occupations, but I would ask hon. Members where the line is to be drawn as between conflicting occupations and membership of the Transport Commission. Hon. Members opposite probably think that membership of the executive of trade unions or high posts in the Transport and General Workers Union would conflict with membership of the Transport Commission. Suppose it was some other union. Suppose it was one of the great mineworkers' unions. Is it possible for someone with an important job in that sphere to do this work of which I have given the merest outline? Would it be possible for a director of I.C.I. or Unilevers, which is one of the biggest conglomerations. to be a member of this Commission?
The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has suggested that it might interfere with the philanthropic or political activities of the members of the Commission. I am glad that an hon. Member opposite got up and supported the view I am putting forward to the House. I view with considerable perturbation the suggestion that when somebody is put on the Commission to run a great public corporation, he should, at the same time, be permitted to carry on political activities—whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal, or Communist. If you are putting someone in a position of this responsibility, with a corresponding salary 1821 and allowances, I do not think you ought to subsidise him in that way, to carry on party politics as a half-time job.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Gallacher
Suppose the man is employed full time, and has certain free time. After all, he will not be working day and night. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that, in his own time, the man should not be allowed to attend a political meeting?
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I say that he ought not to take a prominent part in politics. Every citizen is entitled to vote, and to instruct himself in politics, but a clear line can be drawn here between taking a responsible interest in politics— which is the duty of every citizen and playing a responsible part in politics. I say that if the man is prepared to take a position in helping to run a great public corporation like this he ought not to take a prominent part in politics. To subsidise him, to put him into a well-paid position of this kind, and then permit him to take a prominent part in party politics. would be a retrograde step.
§ Mr. H. Hynd (Hackney, Central)
Would that apply to the chairman of a public corporation like the Port of London Authority?
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
The hon. Member is putting the personal case of the present occupant of that office against me. I would point out that for 40 years this has been possible in connection with this authority, and that it has been found possible, in a local public authority of that kind, to permit it. The same principle has been applied to many other docks which are on a trustee basis. But this is a national body, which is to run a public corporation for the whole country directly under the Minister, which is to be answerable to him, and subject to his interference on a great many points.
§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I have not the least idea of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I do not see how the two things are on the same level at all. The officials of the National Coal Board, 1822 from the way he described them, must be of a very different status, and in a completely different position, from the five men who are to be chosen, by this Bill, to run the country's transport. I say that with these responsibilities it is ludicrous to imagine that the work will be done properly unless these men are employed on a whole time basis. By extending the number on the Commission it would be possible to provide for part-time employment, but with only five I suggest that part-time employment would be simply ludicrous. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Commission will be merely the mouthpiece of the Minister and Whitehall. If we are to have a public corporation let us have one which has a chance of doing the work.
§ Sir Arthur Salter (Oxford University)
I rise with some reluctance to support this Amendment, my reluctance being due to the fact that I think that, under appropriate conditions, it would be extremely useful for part-time people to be associated with the more important parts of this great transport organisation. But I support the Amendment without hesitation because I think it is both unreasonable and illogical that the Minister should insist on being bound by Statute to having no more than five members of this Commission, and at the same time on being given the option of making those members either part-time or whole-time. I have said that part-time members would be useful on the Commission. I think it is a most useful function of the directors of railway companies at present, that they do afford a channel of communication between the services which they direct, and the Community and users who are the consumers of those services. That form of communication, with the fertilising influence that comes from users' and consumers' interests and needs, is even more required when you are setting up a system under which you no longer have the constant and pervasive influence that comes from a competitive system. I would, therefore, like to see part-time members on the Commission.
It seems to me, however, most unreasonable that the Minister should not only refuse a proposal that the Commission should be increased in numbers, but refuse even to give himself the option of increasing that number if, partly as a consequence of 1823 having some part-time members, he should find that desirable. I cannot understand why he refuses himself that option. Surely, if we have regard to the duties of the Commission it is obvious that if it is possible at all for five men to carry out those duties effectively, it certainly will not be possible if some of them are only working part-time. Just think of the range of activity to be covered by the Commission—railways, roads, canals, hotels, docks, and harbours. Their responsibility for making policy must range over this field, and they must infuse energy into the whole of that vast organisation. The precise division of function between them and the different executives is difficult for us, at present, to foresee or estimate. I would describe a few of the tasks more fully, but for the fact that they have been covered so admirably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir Maxwell Fyfe). But I should like to put a little emphasis upon just one of their tasks. Whatever work may fall on the Executives, the task of co-ordinating the work of one Executive with another, and securing co-ordination over the whole system is a task which must fall upon the Commission itself and only on the Commission. It is a task of the utmost importance. It is the one legitimate purpose with which, I think, people on all sides of the House will agree if the Bill is to have some reality and some value in it. Most of us think that the different sections of the transport system would be better run under the present arrangements. But we all know that whether or not the main system is changed, better co-ordination is required, and for that purpose now something like a Transport Commission is desirable and necessary.
Think what that involves—the original inquiry, the constantly keeping up-to-date, the improving, the amending, the adjustment of co-ordination, between one part of the transport system and another. It is a terrific task, and even if the Transport Commission had not many other tasks in hand, how is it to be possible for a Commission of five men only, to carry out this task? It is not really a Transpor t Commission of five men, if only two are whole-time and three part-time. If the Minister is not prepared to say "If I have them part-time, I 1824 must have more on the Commission," why will he not say, at least, "I will give myself the option to increase the number." If he would do that I personally—and I think others would be in the same position—would not oppose him on the particular point of exclusive service. Otherwise, if we have to choose between the Amendment and a Commission of five, some of whom are part-time —but in no case more than five—then certainly I shall support this Amendment.
§ Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)
The Minister, I hope, will take the view that it is very right that the House as such should consider this extremely important matter of the constitution of the British Transport Commission and the way in which the function of its members should be distributed. It is plain from the slenderest acquaintance with this Bill that the Commission is charged with powers and responsibilities which are immense. It will, in fact, direct the whole policy of the nationalised system of transport, and everyone, accepting that, desires to see the best shape in the Commission and the best men members of it. There is to be a chairman and three or four members. I urge the House to consider, in view of the magnitude of the powers of the Commission, the desirability—indeed, this is essential—of its members giving their exclusive services to the duties which flow from their particular task. The House will observe that by Subsection (6) of this Clause there is a protection against a member of the Commission having an interest in a company, and, further than that, the Minister has power to investigate and to select only those who may have no real interest. I take the view that this Clause should not be necessary, for by including the words which my right hon. Friend has submitted, these matters would not be necessary, that we should have men who would give their whole time and would not be in a position to be objected to. We are not alone in holding views similar to this, because I observe that the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) in Committee upstairs said:My own view, which I am sure is shared by the whole of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, is that there is nothing more essential in this Bill than that the members of the Commission shall be whole-time members, that they shall be in no way connected with outside interests, and that they 1825 shall be in a position impartially to apply the policy which they think will best suit the transport industry throughout the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 4th February, 1947, col. 12.]Indeed, the Minister himself said it was desirable to see members of the Commission serving whole time. It does not appear therefore that there is a great conflict in different parts of the House, and I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Oliver Poole
I do not think there is a very great difference between the right hon. Gentleman and other Members on that side or on this side of the House. In fact, it is indeed remarkable that an Amendment of this sort should have been necessary to have been moved by a. right hon. Gentleman on this side rather than by the Government themselves, because we have continuously heard not only in various Debates in this House, but in various Debates upstairs, criticisms from hon. Members opposite of people who were directors of private enterprise companies who were only part-time directors, and great criticism has been levelled in this particular instance against directors of railways that they were not whole-time directors. Some sneers have been made against them that they were not whole-time servants of the railways and I think. therefore, it is rather remarkable that this Amendment should not be favours ably considered by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends. A point was made by an hon. Member opposite as to what would be our attitude on this side of the House if someone who was employed on the Coal Board was mainly occupied in organising the Conservative Party. I would suggest to him that that point is covered by an Amendment which is going to be moved by the Minister himself immediately after this Amendment has been disposed of—in page 2, line 6, after "financial," to insert "or other".
I think that is the whole point of that Amendment, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman will move as a result of a request which I made to him during the Committee stage. Therefore, it is rather odd that there should be any resistance to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has rightly pointed out that many of us feel it would have been much wiser had the Commission 1826 been larger in number only because part-time people could have been employed.
We are faced with two alternatives. It could be said that the ramifications of this Commission are very wide, covering a vast variety of different types of transport, and it would, therefore, be advisable to have members on the Commission who had experience of operating different types of canals and docks, but who would not be whole-time members. The argument could very easily be sustained, that we could have a large Commission of members who could be called upon to give extra technical advice—not detailed advice, because that would come from the Executive—people who could make broad decisions and who would not be required all the time. But that has not been the decision of the Government who have taken exactly the reverse view. They have said: "No, we want a different type of Commission. We want a chairman and we want four members, not people who are going to give extra technical advice, because that will come from the Executives—and the Minister will appoint the Executives—who have expert knowledge of canals, docks, buses and trams. We want four people who are going to take a view of the situation from the broadest angle and take decisions on that." There is no point in going over the argument against, because much was said upon it in the Committee upstairs. We have accepted that, for better or for worse, because it is the decision taken by the Government. All we say now is if the Government are to have four members on the Commission, who are going to carry out these duties, they must be whole-time members so that they can give us knowledge and security in the vast ramifications of a nationalised industry.
I think it is rather a quibble which was raised by an hon. Member as to a member of the Coal Board being the organiser of the Conservative Party, because if he glances at the Order Paper and sees the Amendment which the Minister is to move he will see that his argument cannot be sustained. Therefore, as the Minister has taken this decision, rightly or wrongly, that the Commission should consist of four, I urge him to go the whole hog, and justify his own decision by saying fairly and clearly, "We will have a few people who are going to have a tremendous task to do, but they will be employed solely on that task." In this way he will let every- 1827 one in the industry know that these people are engaged in no other business; that we intend to pay them a salary to compensate them for what they have to give up outside, and that we will engage them as whole-time members for this important work.
If I remember aright, when this matter was being taken upstairs the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport was unable to be present. I am not complaining about that, because he was a very good attender and was never away except when engaged on matters of great importance. The argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary was that he was not rejecting the Amendment on the ground that we were wrong in making the point, but on the ground that the Minister should not commit himself so far ahead, as in 15 or 20 years' time it might be necessary to have part-time people. My answer to that is that if it is necessary to have part-time members of the Commission, we must have more members. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to allow himself a loophole for having part-time members of the Commission, he should allow himself a loophole for having more members of the Commission. If he is going to take the rigid line, "I shall limit the Commission to this number" then we must accept that for better or worse, but we must insist that the Commission should consist of four full-time members.
§ Mr. Gallacher
The argument put up by hon. Members opposite on this Amendment is a condemnation of the fraudulent character of the capitalist method of production. There are Members on the other side of the House and maybe one or two on this side who are Members of Parliament in addition to being directors of large companies which embrace perhaps 10, 15 or 20 smaller companies. What a situation and what awful arguments we are getting from those who are in that class. Even if the arguments were good, it is desirable that Members on the other side of the House should be put out of pain as quickly as possible. I was interested in the speech yesterday, of the right hon. Gentleman who, in my absence, was confused with the Member for West Fife—a situation which I hope does not arise again. The right hon. Gentleman made very good arguments, but what is our attitude towards this? Our attitude 1828 is simple. The right hon. Gentleman may have made good arguments, but the Minister has a very good Bill and we think that the Minister is a very good Minister.
§ Mr. Oliver Poole
I do not think that the hon. Member has made the position absolutely clear. I should like to know the views of the Communist Party in this House, and I should like to know if the hon. Member is in favour of part-time directors or not.
§ Mr. Gallacher
I have made the position as clear as I possibly can. I am in favour of the Minister, and of the very good Bill which the Minister has presented.
§ Mr. Digby
Like the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), I do not object to the principle of part-time members of the Commission. But I agree that if we are to have part-time members we certainly need more. I do not understand why the Minister has resisted the enlargement of the Commission. The Commission will consist of the chairman and four members. There are obviously tasks which cannot be delegated to the chairman, so that really there are four members and they will have a tremendous lot of work to carry out. For example, one of these members is to be on the Central Transport Consultative Committee. I hope that the Minister is going to try to make that committee function, because if he is that is going to take up a lot of the time of one member of the Commission. I really think they are going to have their hands pretty full.
What are we doing? We are setting up a new hierarchy over and above the existing hierarchy. Take the case of the Southern Railway. Decisions are now made by that body. In future there are to be three tiers above it—the Railways Executive, the Commission and then the Minister. The Commission stands between the upper millstone of the Minister, and the nether millstone of the Executive. The Minister has been particularly careful in this Bill to deprive the Executive of a lot of powers which we on this side of the House thought necessary. For example, they are not allowed to make certain appointments which I thought they 1829 should have made. It therefore follows that a great deal of work has got to be done by the five members of this Commission if the whole thing is going to work. It is true that the Minister has obtained very wide powers over the Commission itself, but he has been at pains to assure us on the Committee stage, and on the Second Reading that he is going to use those powers as little as he can and is going to allow this Commission to review the whole field of transport, and the various industries which make up transport. I just cannot believe that if one or two of the four members of the Commission, excluding the chairman, are only part-time members, it is going to be possible for those permanent members to do a really big job as is intended under this Bill.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Maclay
I sincerely hope that in order that we may form a proper estimate of this Amendment, the Minister will use the opportunity to explain clearly what the functions of the Commission are to be. We have gone through 31 sittings of the Standing Committee in a day and a half here, and it is not yet clear what this Commission is to try to do. It was on that argument that we based this Amendment. The Commission is obviously a policymaking body. The Parliamentary Secretary looks at me as though I were stupid, but I do not believe that he could at this minute define what the functions of the Commission are to be. We know that it is to be a policy-making body, but the Commission falls between the Minister and the Executive. The point which I should like to bring to the attention of the House is that if the Commission is really a financially responsible body, it ought to have a financial autonomy, and if it has not a financial autonomy, then the Minister is not a responsible man. I feel very strongly that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House who have been moving Amendments to this and other Bills to take powers from the Minister, may have been working on the wrong lines. I believe that we ought to have been moving Amendments consistently to put complete responsibility on the Minister.
§ Mr. Speaker
The question is whether membership should be whole-time. It is not one of the responsibility of the Minister.
§ Mr. Maclay
I was trying to develop my point. If we really knew whether it the Minister or the Commission was responsible for this enormous undertaking which is contemplated, then we could come to a very clear view on whether or not these officials should or should not be full-time. I would not develop my argument further, because I would not dream of incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point sufficiently clear. If the Minister would explain whether he or the Commission is responsible, I should be very grateful and I should know how to vote.
§ Mr. Barnes
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) when he moved this Amendment prefaced his remarks by saying that it was now 8.15 p.m. on the second day and we had reached the Report stage of the Bill. I would remind him and his hon. Friends that the greater part of the 12½ hours which we have spent in consideration of the Bill has been spent on Amendments which he and his hon. Friends, quite rightly and properly, moved. A considerable number of them had already been discussed at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill. This Amendment which we are now considering was exhaustively debated and considered during the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not complain of that. I recognise that the question of the size and the functions of the Commission has a very important part in the consideration of the whole set-up. I think it is desirable, when we are considering the number of points that the Opposition are happy to remind us have not been discussed, to remember how they are using the time at their disposal.
§ Mr. Oliver Poole
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent the case. Far from being exhaustively discussed, the Debate in Committee was started at 10.35 a.m, and the matter was disposed of before 11.0 a.m. on the same day. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is really quite right in saying that it was exhaustively discussed.
§ Mr. Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
On a point of Order. The interjection made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) is not strictly true. At the 1831 first meeting in Committee upstairs we spent two and a half hours and only reached line 15, by the end of the sitting.
§ Brigadier Mackeson
Further to that point, the Minister must admit that we have not taken up time in discussing many of his Amendments, most of which we have accepted. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that hon. Members on this side of the House should expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to our arguments and Amendments.
§ Mr. Barnes
I do not know that I am alleging that it is unreasonable. I was reminding the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who opened the Debate on this matter, of one or two points which I thought were of general interest. In regard to this Amendment, the position of the Commission cannot be separated from the division of function between a Commission and the Executive. On the Second Reading, and at subsequent discussions in Committee, I made it perfectly plain that one of the major reasons why the Commission has been formed with the small constitution of five persons, is to ensure that it carries out its main task as a policy body and that it should not be led by the breaking up of the Commission as a team—which very often happens if the membership is enlarged—into the process of becoming intimately responsible for the management and operation of this transport undertaking. That is a function which, clearly, is delegated to the Executive bodies.
Therefore, if we take the number of the Commission, which is a policy body, and if we consider it in relation to the Executive, which will be established from time to time to deal with the functional services, I contend that the total number of persons detailed to run these services is quite adequate for the purpose. I see no sense in merely adding to the number of highly salaried persons just for the sake of doing it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby emphasised three main tasks which the Commission will have to carry out. Before I proceed to deal with those three main tasks, I would remind hon. Members that in Committee upstairs I stated quite clearly that 1832 it is the intention of the Government that the five members of the Commission shall be full time Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) was quite right when he indicated that the difference is more imaginary than real. If it is the intention of the Government that the five members of the Commission shall be full time members, I fail to see why my hon. Friends will persist in Amendments of this description.
§ Mr. Barnes
I have pointed out that it is not necessary to put what is the intention of the Government into the Bill. If hon. Members will reflect for a moment they will see that there is advantage in matters of this description in leaving the matter free. It becomes increasingly difficult to get legislative action to deal with matters that vary from time to time, and one can easily see, and foresee, that there may be circumstances in the future of a character that would justify a departure from the general practice to meet some emergency or special circumstances that may not last for a long period. lit may be desirable from time to time to depart from the rigid position that we must always be bound under all circumstances and in all cases to insist upon this rule being applied to the members of the Commission. Therefore, in economic matters of this description, there is considerable advantage, provided the Government make their intention clear— there is nothing to be lost and there is sometimes everything to be gained—in just leaving that freedom to meet any special circumstances that may arise.
§ Sir A. Salter
Is the Minister asking us to rely on intentions as an alternative to relying on provisions in the Statute? Does he mean that he cannot conceive of the Act lasting longer than the Government and the Minister?
§ Mr. Barnes
What I am visualising is just the opposite. Once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament its advantages will be so apparent to the people of this country that it will become a permanent institution. The public transport service 1833 is a public institution and one must look ahead and make provision for circumstances that arise from time to time in the life of the State. We have had two experiences in our lifetime of the strategic value and importance of the transport services in two world wars, and the necessity to be able to accommodate ourselves to circumstances of that character. Even recently we have passed through a fuel crisis of some magnitude, and it is to meet emergencies and contingencies of that character that I feel it is an advantage to leave the position free. Therefore, the provisions that govern the Commission at the present moment do not prevent the members of the Commission from being fulltime members; the intention is to start off with fulltime membership but to leave it free in the future to meet any circumstances that may arise.
I want to emphasise that the function of the Commission, in my view, does not represent that exhaustion of its time which has been assumed by many hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. All its functions are of a policy character and policy decisions do not require the same amount of time as the day to day management of large undertakings. The Commission's job is to fulfil the purpose which Parliament has in view in passing this Bill. It will be responsible for co-ordination, it is true, but it will not have to carry out the task of co-ordination. That will be done from day to day by the executive bodies. The Commission will be responsible for seeing that the Executive work together to a common purpose.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised that road haulage services would have to be organised on probably a local or an area or a district basis. I do not disagree with that contention. It will not be the Commission's job to organise the road haulage services on a local or a district or an area basis. That will be the job of the Road Haulage Executive. He stated finally that the Commission would be responsible for preparing this charges scheme. That again is true, but the Commission, I assume, will have around it a very small but high-powered technical staff that will be able to do all the preparatory work of that description.
Therefore, having examined this matter from the beginning and listened to the arguments of hon. Members, I do not see that there is any case for increasing the 1834 number of members of this Commission. If the members were increased it would, I suggest, eventually lead them into the departmentalisation of their own individual work and functions. That is the position which we must avoid in a policy body. We do not want the members of the Commission to form themselves into a body of departmental Executives supervising any particular branch of transport. The purpose of the Commission essentially is to see that the purpose we have in mind of an adequate, co-ordinated, efficient transport service is carried out and performed by the Executives. That being the case, I trust the House will support the Government in this decision, because I believe that keeping the Commission small will compel it to act as a team. It will not break down its services, it will assume collective responsibility for this purpose and, by assuming collective responsibility as a Commission, by that process more than any other, the Minister and Whitehall will be relieved from the responsibility of conducting the affairs of this public transport service. Again, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)
My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked the right hon. Gentleman a specific question; who is responsible to this sovereign House of Commons for, as the Minister calls it, the adequate and co-ordinated transport service of this country, himself or the Commission?
§ Mr. Barnes
On the Floor of the House obviously the Minister is responsible. Questions by Members of Parliament about the Commission or the Executive it will be the responsibility of the Minister to answer.
§ Mr. Barnes
All questions affecting the Commission and the Executive as individual appointments. The Minister does not carry, of course, the day-to-day operations of the service. That was one of the reasons why it was felt desirable in Committee that the Minister should appoint the Executives, and that Parliament should have access to information about the Executives from the Minister.
§ Mr. Maclay
But the Minister will agree —or make it clear if it is not so—that what 1835 he has just said is not at all the practice, or what has been established in the case of the Coal Board and the Ministry of Fuel and Power? That is a most important statement.
§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I wish I could imitate the trustfulness of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and adopt the attitude that the Minister is all right, the Bill is all right, and anybody who says anything more than that is wrong.
§ Mr. Brown
I will give way if the hon. Member wants to interrupt. I was saying that I would like to imitate that trustful attitude, but I think it would represent a surrender of the critical functions of Parliament. I agree with much of what the Minister has just said, but I suppose that hon. Members who are incapable of supporting the Government when it is right, and opposing it when it is wrong—
§ Mr. Brown
I agree with the Minister that the function of the Transport Commission should be a policy-making and not an executive one. I think he is to be complimented on drawing that distinction as sharply and clearly as he has done, because it is vital to the good administration of that body in the future. I agree that these men should not be executives. I agree that they ought not to be heads of departments within the Transport Commission. On all that I could not agree with him more, but what is he asked to do? He is asked not to tie his hands too closely, either about the numbers of people on the Board or whether they should be full or part-time. That is the whole point and pith of this argument. I should have thought that the right line for the Minister was to be utterly inflexible in principle, and infinitely adaptable in administration, but what do I find? I find that when we are dealing with issues of principle like compensation, he is so flexible that Heaven alone knows what the compensation will be. But when we are dealing with administration, he is so utterly inflexible that it has to be five members on the Board—not six and not four. Five alone will satisfy the requirements of the Minister. He himself is a 1836 passionate pleader for restraint on his own freedom in future. He is not merely not in favour of liberty for the rest of us, but is specially opposed to liberty for himself. The sensible thing to say here would be, "Certainly we do not want a larger Commission than is necessary; we want it to be policy-making and not executive, but we want it to be flexible, and to leave our hands free to increase or diminish the number as is necessary. We will leave it to circumstances to determine whether it is necessary for full-time or part-time."
§ Mr. Brown
No, Sir, but with respect, it deals with whether it should be full-time or part-time membership, and I submit that there is a connection between that, and the number required on the Commission. I should have thought the best thing was for the Minister to keep his hands free, whereas he emerges as a passionate advocate of slavery for himself in the future.
§ Mr. Speaker
I must remind the hon. Member that we have got past the Subsection which says that the Commission shall consist of a chairman and four members. That is over and done with.
§ Mr. Brown
I was not aware of that, Sir, if I may say so. I make the simple suggestion that there is a connection between the number of people to be employed, and whether they are to be employed full-time or part-time. If we cannot discuss them in a related fashion, we cannot discuss them in any fashion at all.
§ Brigadier Mackeson
The right hon. Gentleman put up a good case for part-time directors, and it might well be that if we had more information, we would agree that part-time members would be desirable. I can understand his argument for a small Commission. It has many advantages, which were discussed in Committee, and on balance I see the value and validity of the argument. But what worried me about his speech is how the benefit of co-ordination is to be achieved unless each member of the Commission functions 100 per cent. He mentioned technical staff. That is one thing about which my hon. Friends and I are perturbed, and which I believe worries hon. 1837 Members opposite. We do not wish to see great executive power handed over to civil servants—
§ Mr. Barnes
May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? They will not be civil servants in this case; they will be experts, and technicians, drawn from the transport industry.
§ Brigadier Mackeson
I fully accept the point. My point is that they will not in fact be executive officers. They will be staff officers without responsibility. What worries me is that unless these members of the Commission are whole-time members, they may quite inadvertently spend more time on other duties than they would if it were not possible for them to have outside duties. I am sure the Minister accepts that as a most difficult point—[Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would either leave the House or be quiet to take some interest in this serious Debate.
§ Brigadier Mackeson
The hon. Member does not listen and interrupts with sneers and without rising in his place. The point I want to make is that there are only five members of this Commission, and that at any time during five or six months of the year one member will be on leave. It will be necessary for one member to be off duty for a month or so at any given time during the six summer months. It may also be necessary for one or other of the members to go abroad. I hope that will be insisted upon by the Minister. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister remains Minister, he will insist that Russia and Canada and other countries should be visited so that the problems there can be studied. This absence will weaken the Commission very much. It will mean that during half the year there will be only three or four members of the Commission in the country. One member may be sick, which will leave only three, and if they take on other part-time directorships, there may be only two members. This is a serious point, and I hope the Minister will consider the difficulties. Surely, the real answer is to increase the size of the Commission, to have whole-time employees, and to make quite certain that there is no question of outside influences from the Socialist, Conservative, 1838 or Liberal Parties, or even the Communist Party. Let us keep politics out of the Commission; let us see that it is efficient and that it works. The members of the Commission must give all their working hours to their job.
§ Mr. Assheton
It is rather difficult for the House, without a little further information, to come to a conclusion on this matter.
§ Mr. Assheton
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is perfectly satisfied with the Bill as drafted, and is ready to accept it. It is a small matter to him that about 200 Amendments have been accepted by the Minister. I am sure the hon. Member would not have bothered about any of them. Some of us, however, are taking this Bill seriously, and I want to put one or two points about policy. What we have to decide is whether the members of the Commission, of whom there are to be five, should be whole-time or part-time. That is the issue. In Committee the Opposition pressed very hard for a larger Commission, because they felt it would be useful to have some outside members who were not full-time members, and they thought that could be achieved only if the Commission were as numerous as nine members; but with only five members, the Opposition took the view that it was necessary that they should be full-time members. The Minister has told us that these five members will deal with questions of policy, and policy only. What I am a little doubtful about is what the Minister includes under the term "policy."
I would remind the House that the Commission are to take over at least five very big different interests. They are to take over the railways. I might point out that the two largest railway companies, the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R., which are by far the biggest railways in the world, are respectively the second and third biggest companies in the world, including all the companies of America. Secondly, they are to take over the whole of the road transport business. Thirdly, they are to take over, or to make arrangements for, the docks and harbours. Finally. they are to take over all the railway hotels, of which there are more than 70. The L.M.S. is the biggest hotel keeper in the whole of Europe. The Commission will 1839 be undertaking a fairly big business, and the House must recognise that. What are the kind of questions of policy which the Commission will discuss? I want to give one or two illustrations to the Minister so that he can tell us. I will draw my illustrations from the railways, about which I know rather more than I do about some of the other topics. Take the question of staff relations. There are more than 600,000 railway employees at the present time. May I take it that the major aspect of labour relations will be a matter of policy for the Commission to discuss? Will that be among the problems which the Commission has to consider?
§ Mr. Assheton
I have a number of questions to put to the Minister before he replies. That is the first one; would that subject be considered a question of high policy? I should have thought it would. Then we come to the physical management—to the track, for instance. The railway companies have 52,000 miles of track. It is a matter of great importance to them, a matter of high policy, as to whether they are to make use of concrete sleepers instead of wooden sleepers, owing to difficulties in getting timber. Would that be a matter of policy which the Commission would discuss or not? Then the railway companies own more than no steamships. It is a matter of great importance to the railway companies to decide what type of ship they are to use and order. Would that be a matter which the Commissioners would consider or would it not?
Again, there are locomotives—the railway companies have more than 20,000 locomotives, and there are all sorts of differences of opinion between the different companies as to the best type of locomotive. We consider, in the railway companies, that that is a matter of high policy. Would it be a matter which the Minister would think the Commission should deal with, or would it be left to the Railway Executive? Then again the railway companies own for example more than 50,000 houses. Would it be a matter for the Commission to consider 1840 whether those houses are to be equipped in a certain way, whether they are to be brought thoroughly up to date—as some of them unfortunately are not? Would that be a matter of high policy for the Commission or would it be left to the Railway Executive? Would it be a matter of policy for the Commission to decide what is to happen to the horses, of which the railway companies have more than 9,000? Is the problem of dealing with the horses one for the Commission or will it be left to the Railway Executive?
I give these illustrations of some of the matters which are high matters of policy. Supposing there are differences of opinion on the Railway Executive, which is possible, on the kind of locomotive to be used. Will that go up to the Commission for their decision? Finally we come to such large questions as rates. That is an immense problem. The question of rates and the policy to be adopted in regard to rates and fares, and the whole problems of co-ordination, are obviously problems for the Commission. Until we know the answer to all these questions I find it a little difficult to conclude what will be the duties of these Commissioners. If they really have to consider all the matters of policy which may come up from the Railway Executives, I cannot believe that five men can possibly do the work. I would certainly agree with my right hon. Friend and others behind me who have supported this Amendment in insisting that those five men should be whole time. If the Minister would be good enough to give an answer to a few of the questions I have put to him, they are only a small selection out of a large number, I think the House would be in a better position to come to a conclusion.
§ Mr. Barnes
I can answer them all. Staff relations, tracks, concrete or timber sleepers, locomotives, housing for railway staffs, horses—they all come under the Railway Executive. Rates and charges will be the responsibility of the Commission in the first instance, to frame and submit to the tribunal.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 317.1811
|Division No. 155.]||AYES.||[7.43 p.m.|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr Hon. L. W|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W||Keeling, E. H.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Drayson, G. B.||Kendall, W. D.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Drewe, C.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel W.||Langford-Holt, J.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H|
|Boothby, R.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M||Linstead, H. N.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Gage, C.||Lipson, D. L.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Brown, W. J. (Rugby)||Glyn, Sir R.||Lucas, Maj. Sir J.|
|Buchan-Hepburn P. G. T||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Granville, E. (Eye)||McCallum, Maj. D.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Gridley, Sir A.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Grimston, R. V.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.|
|Byers, Frank||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V||Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Haughton, S. G.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W|
|Cole, T. L.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Marsden, Capt. A.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Hollis, M. C.||Maude, J. C.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Medlicott, F.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hurd, A.||Mellor, Sir J.|
|De la Bère, R.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.|
|Digby, S. W.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)|
|Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Nicholson, G.||Ropner, Col. L.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Nield, B. (Chester)||Ross, Sir R.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Scott, Lord W.||Touche, G. C.|
|Nutting, Anthony||Shephard, S. (Newark)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.||Walker-Smith, D|
|Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Pickthorn, K.||Smithers, Sir W.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Pitman, I. J.||Spearman, A. C. M.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Rayner, Brig. R.||Studholme, H. G.||York, C|
|Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Renton, D.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Roberts. Emrvs (Merioneth)||Tooling, William||Commander Agnew and Major Conant.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Deer, G.||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Delargy, Captain H. J||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Diamond, J.||Irving, W. J.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dobbie, W.||Janner, B|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Dodds, N. N.||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Jager, G. (Winchester)|
|Austin, H. L.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)|
|Bacon, Miss A||Dumpleton, C. W||John, W.|
|Baird, J||Durbin, E. F. M.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)|
|Balfour, A.||Dye, S.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Barstow, P. G||Edelman, M.||Keenan, W.|
|Barton, C.||Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Kenyon, C.|
|Battley, J. R.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||King, E. M.|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E|
|Belcher, J. W.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Kinley, J.|
|Beswick, F.||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Lang, G.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Lavers, S.|
|Bing, G. H. C||Ewart, R.||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Binns, J.||Fairhurst, F.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Blenkinsop, A||Farthing, W. J.||Leonard, W.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Field, Captain W. J.||Leslie, J R.|
|Boardman, H.||Follick, M.||Levy, B W.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Foot, M. M.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)|
|Bowden, Flg.-offr. H. W||Forman, J. C.||Lewis, J. (Bolton)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Foster, W. (Wigan)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Fraser, H. (Hamilton)||Lipton, Lt.Col. M.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Logan, D. G.|
|Bramall, Major E. A.||Gaitskell, H. T. N.||Longden, F.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Gallagher, W.||Lyne, A. W.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Ganley, Mrs. C S||McAdam, W.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Gibbins, J||McAllister, G.|
|Bruce, Major D. W. T.||Gilzean, A.||McEntee, V. La T|
|Buchanan, G.||Gooch, E. G.||McGhee, H. G.|
|Burden, T. W.||Goodrich, H. E.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Burke, W. A.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N.W)|
|Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)||Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)||McKinlay, A. S.|
|Callaghan, James||Grey, C. F.||Maclean, N. (Govan)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Grierson, E.||McLeavy, F|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)|
|Champion, A. J||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Chater, D.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Gunter, R. J.||Mann, Mrs. J.|
|Cobb, F. A||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hale, Leslie||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)|
|Coldrick, W.||Hall, W. G.||Marquand, H. A.|
|Collick, P.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R||Marshall, F. (Brightside)|
|Collins, V. J||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Mathers, G.|
|Colman, Miss G. M||Hardman, D. R||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Hardy, E. A||Medland, H M|
|Cook, T. F.||Harrison, J.||Messer, F.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Middleton, Mrs. L|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R|
|Cove, W. G.||Hewitson, Capt. M||Mitchison, Major G. R|
|Crawley, A.||Hobson, C. R.||Monslow, W.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Holman, P.||Montague, F|
|Daggar, G.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Moody, A. S.|
|Daines, P.||Hoy, J.||Morgan, Dr. H. B|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hubbard, T.||Morley, R.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Moyle, A.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Murray, J. D.|
|Nally, W.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shurmer, P.||Viant, S. P.|
|Neal, H. (Claycross)||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Walkden, E.|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Simmons, C. J.||Walker, G. H.|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)||Skeffington, A. M.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Skinnard, F. W.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Paget, R. T.||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Watson, W. M.|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Solley, L. J.||Weitzman, D.|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Sorensen, R. W.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Parkin, B. T.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Sparks, J. A.||West, D. G.|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Stamford, W.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Pearson, A.||Steele, T.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Peart, Capt. T. F.||Stephen, C.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Porter, E. (Warringtn)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Porter, G. (Leeds)||Stubbs, A. E.||Wilkes, L.|
|Price, M. Philips||Summerskill, Dr. Edith||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Proctor, W. T.||Swingler, S.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Pryde, D. J.||Sylvester, G. O.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Symonds, A. L.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Randall, H. E.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Ranger, J.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Rankin, J.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Williamson, T.|
|Rhodes, H.||Thomson, Rt. Hn, G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)||Willis, E.|
|Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Robens, A.||Thurtle, Ernest||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Tiffany, S.||Woodburn, A.|
|Ross, Willlam (Kilmarnock)||Timmons, J.||Wyatt, W.|
|Royle, C.||Titterington, M. F.||Yates, V. F.|
|Scollan, T.||Tolley, L.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Scott-Elliot, W.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Shackleton, E. A. A.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Sharp, Granville||Ungoed-Thomas, L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Usborne, Henry||Mr Collindridge and Mr. Popplewell.|
|Division No. 156.]||AYES.||[9.34 p.m.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V||Pete, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Houghton, S. G.||Pickthorn, K.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hogg, Hon. Q||Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Hollis, M. C.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Howard, Hon. A.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J||Renton, D.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hurd, A||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Bowen, R.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)||Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Brown, W J. (Rugby)||Keeling, E. H.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Kendall, W. D.||Ross, Sir R.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A|
|Butcher, H. W.||Lambe[...], Hon. G.||Scott, Lord W.|
|Byers, Frank||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Langford-Holt, J.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Cole, T. L.||Linstead, H. N.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lipson, D. L.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Strauss, H. C. (English Universities)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Low, Brig. A. R. W.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lucas, Maj. Sir J,||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||McCallum, Maj. D.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)|
|Digby, S. W.||MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Teeling, Willlam|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Drayson, G. B.||McKie, J, H. (Galloway)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Drewe, C.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries)||Touche, G. C.|
|Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel W.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Marsden, Capt. A.||Wadsworth, G.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Maude, J. C.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Gage, C.||Medlicott, F.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Mellor, Sir J.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Glyn, Sir R.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Grant, Lady||Nicholson, G.||York, C.|
|Granville, E. (Eye)||Nield, B. (Chester)|
|Gridley, Sir A.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Grimston, R. V.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Mr. Studholme and|
|Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Major Conant.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Bramall, Major E. A.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Brook, D. (Halifax)||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Davies, Harold (Leek)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Bruce, Major D. W. T.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Buchanan, G.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Burden, T. W.||Deer, G.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Burke, W. A.||de Freitas, Geoffrey|
|Austin, H. L.||Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)||Delargy, Captain H. J.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Callaghan, James||Diamond, J.|
|Baird, J.||Chamberlain, R. A.||Dobble, W.|
|Balfour, A.||Champion, A. J.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Chater, D.||Driberg, T. E. N.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Chetwynd, G R.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)|
|Barton, C.||Cobb, F. A.||Dumpleton, C. W|
|Battley, J. R.||Cocks, F. S.||Durbin, E. F. M.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Coldrick, W.||Dye, S.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Collick, P.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C|
|Benson, G.||Collindridge, F.||Edelman, M.|
|Beswick, F.||Collins, V. J.||Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Colman, Miss G. M.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)|
|Binns, J.||Comyns, Dr. L.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Cook, T. F.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Evans, John (Ogmore)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)|
|Boardman, H.||Corlett, Dr. J.||Ewart, R.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Cove, W. G.||Fairhurst, F.|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Crawley, A.||Farthing, W. J.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Creasman, R. H. S.||Field, Captain W. J.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Daggar, G.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Daines, P.||Follick, M.|
|Foot, M. M.||McAllister, G.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Forman, J. C.||McEntee, V. La T.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Foster, W. (Wigan)||McGhee, H. G.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||McKinlay, A. S.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N.||Maclean, N. (Govan)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Gallacher, W.||MoLeavy, F.||Solley, L. J.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Gibbins, J.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F|
|Gilzean, A.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Gooch, E. C.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Stamford, W.|
|Goodrich, H. E.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Steele, T.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Stephen, C.|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Marquand, H. A.||Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Strachey, J.|
|Grey, C. F.||Mathers, G.||Strauss, G R. (Lambeth)|
|Grierson, E.||Mayhew, C. P.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Medland, H M.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Messer, F.||Swingler, S.|
|Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Mikardo, Ian||Symonds, A. L.|
|Gunter, R. J.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Guy, W. H.||Mitchison, Major G. R.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Monslow, W.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Hall, W. G.||Moody, A. S,||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|Hardman, D. R.||Morley, R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Harrison, J.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Tiffany, S|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L||Timmons, J.|
|Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Moyle, A.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Murray, J. D||Tolley, L.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Nally, W.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G|
|Hobson, C. R.||Naylor, T. E.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Holman, P.||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Ungoed-Thomas, L|
|Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Usborne, Henry|
|House, G.||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Vernon, Maj. W. F|
|Hoy, J.||Oldfield, W. H.||Viant, S. P.|
|Hubbard, T.||Oliver, G. H.||Walkden, E.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Walker, G. H.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Pargiter, G. A.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Parkin, B, T.||Watson, W. M.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Irving, W. J.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Weitzman, D.|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Pearson, A.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.||West, D G.|
|John, W.||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)||Porter, E. (Warringtn)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Price, M. Philips||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Proctor, W. T.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Pryde, D. J.||Wilkes, L.|
|Keenan, W.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Kenyon, C.||Randall, H. E.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|King, E. M.||Ranger, J.||Willey, O. C. (Cleveland)|
|Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E||Rankin, J.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Kinley, J.||Raid, T. (Swindon)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Lang, G.||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Lavers, S.||Richards, R.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Williamson, T|
|Leo, Miss J (Cannock)||Robens, A.||Willis, E.|
|Leonard, W.||Roberts, Goronwy, (Caernarvonshire)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Leslie, J R||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Levy, B. W.||Ross, Willlam (Kilmarnock)||Woodburn, A|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Royle, C.||Wyatt, W.|
|Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Scollan, T.||Yates, V. F.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Scott-Elliot, W.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Logan, D. G.||Sharp, Granville|
|Longden, F.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Lyne, A. W.||Shurmer, P.||Mr. Hannan and|
|McAdam, W.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Mr. Popplewell.|
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Barnes
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "financial," to insert "or other."
This Amendment—and the following Amendment—is designed to meet an 1844 undertaking which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) in Standing Committee, and seeks to ensure that the Minister should satisfy himself that no member of the Commission should have a financial 1845 or other interest which is likely to affect the proper discharge of his duties.
§ Mr. Oliver Poole
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to withhold credit where it is due. He will recall that a considerable time was spent in Committee in discussing a similar Amendment moved by the Opposition and I hope he will agree that we played some part in persuading him to make this alteration.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, leave out "him in the discharge," and insert "prejudicially the discharge by him."—[Mr. Barnes.]