HC Deb 04 August 1947 vol 441 cc1160-95

Lords Amendments:

In page 48, line 24, leave out "forty" and insert "eighty."

In page 48, line 27, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty"; and in page 48, line 36, leave out "forty" and insert "eighty."

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendments but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 48, line 23, leave out from "undertaking" to "in" in line 24;

Page 48, line 27, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "forty."

Page 48, line 36, leave out Subsection (3).

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."

These Amendments raise again the issue of the test to determine whether an undertaker is a long distance undertaking or not. We have had this matter debated through various stages of the Bill. These Amendments suggest a 40 miles radius test. I would point out that the Commission, if it is to undertake the responsibility imposed upon it under Clause 3, must have sufficient resources for that purpose. Therefore, I am unable on behalf of the Government to accept any Amendment that tends to whittle down its resources.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (West Derby)

It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we have had some discussion, if not on these Amendments, at any rate on similar Amendments which cover the same point. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first time we attempted to discuss the matter in this House the discusscion was somewhat sharply truncated while I was myself speaking. So he must use the patience we know he possesses to hear these Amendments discussed at a little length tonight. I want to make it clear that tonight I am most anxious to discuss the Amendment in lieu, from the point of view of workability. I have already tried to put to the right hon. Gentleman the general arguments as to the equity of taking the test which he has chosen for deciding the question of ordinary long distance haulage. Although there are many and weighty arguments against the equity of the test, in general I do not propose to go over these tonight, but I do want to make clear what is the problem which is raised by the Amendment which has been sent from another place.

The first effect is to leave out the first limb of the right hon. Gentleman's test. He will appreciate that this is quite a different suggestion from that which was previously put forward. As I see it, the first effect is to leave out the first limb of the test, which is the carriage of goods by a person carrying on the undertaking for a distance of 40 miles or upwards, as the road winds, in one vehicle or a succession of vehicles. The third of these Amendments merely leave out the peculiarly difficult and groundless method of measurement. That test does not stand alone because it is interlocked with the second limb, which lays down that the 40 miles carriage must be in such circumstances that at one point it brings the vehicle outside a radius of 25 miles from its operating centre.

I would like the right hon. Gentleman to help us on this point, because I think it is extremely important. As I understand the present test that the Government propose, it means that if you are inside a radius of 25 miles, you can carry any particular goods as far as you like. The carriage limitation of 40 miles only applies if you go outside the radius of 25 miles. It follows from that—again I want to take the right hon. Gentleman with me, if he would be so kind—that you can carry goods under the proposed test, and not come within the long distance limitation, 39.9 miles from your basis without being caught by the test. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for signifying his agreement. I want the House to consider what that means for both sides when they are trying to work out the test.

The Commission, before they attempt to acquire a road haulage business, have to form their opinion that it is a long distance haulage business. The other side, if the Commission form the opinion and proceed to apply, may have to prepare their case for the tribunal. That, as I understand it, means that both sides, when they have the records before them, have to go into what I submit is an entirely intolerable dissection, first, of all the journeys to see if the last five miles go over the radius or not, and secondly, of the goods carried, to see if one parcel of goods was hot carried over 40 miles. That seems to us to be an intolerable extra complication of the position, and we say that it would be simpler—although that would be difficult enough—to have one test whether a vehicle went outside the 40 miles radius.

Then you would be able to have certain clearly defined points to which the journey would have to be made. The worst that could happen, from the point of view of eliminating this part of the right hon. Gentleman's test, is that some journeys—and they are bound to be few, because you do not get points in the circle conveniently situated in every case—would be over 50 and under 80 miles. Some of the journeys would be counted as long distance journeys. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is saying that journeys up to 40 miles would be counted as short distance journeys. I say, and I am trying not to cover the ground which I covered a few days ago, that that would, in taking the examples of which I spoke on the last occasion—the London area, the industrial area of England and especially I had in mind of course Liverpool and Manchester, or the industrial belt of Scotland—have an entirely good effect.

There are two arguments that have been used against this with which I would like to deal. The first is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman tonight that the Commission must have sufficient resources to carry out their duty under Clause 3.

The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to signify his agreement in the last discussion that any speculation, or any estimate of the numbers of vehicles in this connection, must be guesswork. But I think he will agree with me that, on the principle that he has adopted, and that everyone has adopted in approaching this problem, he reduces the mileage, increases the number of vehicles that are taken over, and decreases the number that are left. We have made a considerable reduction in the suggestions which I am now indicating to the House. We argued on the last occasion a distance of carry of 80 miles and a radius of 50 miles. We omit the distance of carry and take the radius of 40 miles, which is a very material fact in journeys. I agree, of course, that it will reduce the number taken over, and that is one reason why I am anxious that the House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment. It will reduce the numbers in what is a very modest estimate of long distance haulage, and that is the radius of 40 miles.

Another argument that has been advanced is, to go into mathematics and use the old familiar formula of Πr 2, and put it on a square miles radius. That argument, I think, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was the first to use—in the Committee stage. I should like to point out one fallacy in that argument which, I think, is clear—and, indeed, it must be apparent to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, because he has not advanced the argument, so far as I remember, at any stage—and that is, that when we take on the square miles basis, we are not dealing with an area in which the radius runs like lines on a map square of a military map: we are dealing with areas, especially in the rural areas, where we may have in each only one second-class road in a large part of the area, and in which the destination may be only a few farms.

Therefore, apart from the other arguments that have been advanced, and which I have tried not to repeat, we say that the present test is calculated to meet with the greatest possible difficulty of working out by both sides. After the arguments that we have heard from the learned Solicitor-General on the question of the onus of proof, it surely behoves the Government, first and foremost, to get the test in the simplest possible form. That is our first argument. We say that the radius such as we suggest of 40 miles, leaving out the test of carry, would be a great simplification. Secondly, we say that 40 miles is, at any rate, getting near what can be justified in ordinary common parlance as ordinary long distance haulage. Thirdly, we say that, as far as the number of vehicles is concerned, the number that the right hon. Gentleman through the Commission is going to get—not only the long-distance road haulage vehicles, not only the short-distance vehicles that go with their businesses, but the railway vehicles and the vehicles of the railway owned road haulage companies, some 95 per cent. of which are engaged on either short distance work or exceptional traffics—is an amply sufficient number of vehicles.

We must urge again that this is a question of livelihood, that this is a question of destroying the work of the lives of the people whose businesses are taken over. Therefore, if we are going to put into the Act—as quite distinct from having it in our speeches—that what we seek to take over is ordinary long-distance haulage, then some effort ought to be made to get near the sense of the words we use. Secondly, there should be a test which will work. I hope, for these reasons, that the House will agree with this Amendment and put a commonsense aspect on the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Raikes (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I rise to support my right hon. and learned Friend. I propose to deal with the question of radius. First and foremost I maintain that the 40 miles compared with the 25 miles is an advantage, working in with what we did in the days of the war. During the war, 60 miles was allowed, and 60 miles in distance, if worked out mathematically, is just under 40 miles in radius. If the Government accepted 37½ miles, which is the precise figure, no doubt there would be no trouble at all. But when the figure is 25 miles, as has already been pointed out. it will be impossible for hauliers to operate between Liverpool and Manchester and I do not think that anybody, whatever views he may have about the Bill as a whole, would say that that is long-distance haulage.

The same can be said of haulage between Glasgow and Edinburgh. In short, one is driven to see the futility of this when one thinks that a haulier cannot operate in Greater London itself. That is not all. The position is even more fantastic in Scotland or North Wales where comparatively short distances in the generally understood sense are long when 25 miles is the figure concerned. One is not only injuring all comparatively short-distance hauliers, but also the trader and consumer alike, all of whom desire to continue the service which they have enjoyed in past times.

From reassurances which have been given by the Minister one gathers that his objection is on the basis that he will not have sufficient vehicles if the 25 mile limit is increased to 40. Assuming at its lowest that the Commission will have the 10,000 vehicles which is calculated they will get from the railway companies, and assuming on their lowest figures—the figures which have been given by the Government—that they will also have another 8,000, so they will, at any rate, have 18,000 instead of the 30,000 which they claim they will have under the operation of the 25 mile rule. Seriously, I would ask hon. Members whether it can be accepted that, incompetent though this Board may be, we are not driven almost to a condition of lunacy, if it is claimed that this Board cannot work with as many as 18,000 vehicles for dealing with long distance haulage. The Board can easily have a good many more. The Minister has power to increase the number of vehicles to almost any amount, and this 18,000 could be considerably increased. That being so, it seems to me complete folly to suggest that, if one has only 18,000 vehicles, this wonderful Commission cannot operate economically or usefully. I say so, remembering that this is quite apart from the fact that there can be many more vehicles which will probably be asked for at an early date. In fact, what it amounts to is that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that unless all competition above 25 miles can be utterly stifled, even this Board will be unable to act.

In conclusion I would say—and this is really the gist of the whole matter—that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, by having the fantastically low figure of 25 miles, are, in point of fact, meaning, and deliberately meaning, in due course to kill not only long-distance haulage but all haulage. This is what lies at the back of it, doing it in two bites at the cherry instead of one. If they do not intend to kill short-distance haulage, they could very easily have given the short-distance man a fair opportunity by accepting the Amendment, which does not really affect long-distance haulage at all but gives a reasonable opportunity to a large number of men to continue a useful service that they have rendered in the past.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I earnestly appeal to the Minister. This battle for transport has gone on for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It has been fought with honest feeling, and the debates which have taken place in another place have been at the very highest level and have, if I may say so, shown a keen appreciation of the hardships which may be inflicted upon 60,000 men—small men at that. I am appealing to the Minister in a fully cooperative manner. Can he not realise that there are vast numbers of people who really represent the majority of people in this country, who do not want to see the small man driven out of business and who want to see some kind of co-operation from the Ministry, some kind of compromise?

Why does the Minister turn down this Amendment? The Lords have reduced the distance. They have done everything they can to compromise. They have reduced it to 40. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman come forward with a compromise, with 35 miles or something like that, and say, "We will meet you"? We had honestly felt on this side of the House that the Minister was really striking beyond long-distance haulage although he said he only wanted to take in long distance. We really felt that he was going to strike beyond. We are not on this side convinced that 25 miles represents the limit of the advance. What we feel is that he is doing this in order to take over a certain number of vehicles. I do not think that that is fair. It is not fair to say that the object of a Bill is to take over long-distance and then to take over these small fellows' vehicles. That should not be done. The Minister ought to be able to get what he wants with priorities and so on—new vehicles—and if he has only ten or fifteen thousand to start he will get the rest in time. We feel that a great injustice will be done to the small man if the short distance vehicles are taken over, not an honourable thing in a Bill which is suppose to nationalize long distance haulage.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

If these Amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, they will do something to assist in keeping the road haulier in the North of Scotland on the road. If they are thrown out, it will mean quite definitely that in that area road hauliers will go out of business. There is no question about that—and I do not think that any Scottish Member on the other side of the House would seek to contradict that statement—because the figures of 40 and 25 make the situation perfectly plain in that very widely scattered area. The Clause which this Amendment seeks to alter is entirely governed by the opinion of the Commission, and in that Commission Scotland has no effective voice whatever. Therefore, we are entirely dependent upon what the Minister, in his charity, is prepared to do for us in Scotland. He has heard these arguments before and listened to them with great patience; but none the less with a stony heart. Their Lordships from Scotland in another place have put the case even more forcefully than we have been able to do, and the argument is irresistible, unless the intention is to resist for the sake of resistance. I would beg the Minister to reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that Scotland will have no effective voice whatever in the running of the transport of her country.

Mr. Barnes

If I may have permission from the House, I will reply to some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). Apparently he has overlooked the fact that an Amendment was accepted in another place that in special circumstances, the Commission and the undertaker can contract out of this compulsory acquisition. Further, on Clause 52, in which terms and other matters are dealt with, the hon. and gallant Member will also recollect that the position in the North of Scotland and in coastal towns was met by another Amendment which directed the Commission to take into account all special circumstances of that character.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, admit that in the Commission there will be no effective voice from Scotland?

Mr. Barnes

With regard to the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about driving the small man out of business, I must say that I think that has been grossly exaggerated during the debates. I would point out to him that under the test in the Bill it is estimated that approximately 20,000 "A"long-distance hauliers' vehicles will be taken over, which will mean one in every four affected. In regard to the "B" licences, it is estimated that only between 2,000 and 3,000 out of 58,000 will be taken over. Therefore, a vast majority of undertakers will carry on. It is true that in certain conditions a permit will operate, but an Amendment has been accepted in another place and a good deal of flexibility has been introduced on that point.

The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) appeared to be discussing a later Amendment rather than the Amendment which is before the House. Perhaps I might deal now with the points he raised. While he was speaking it occurred to me, that if this latest Amendment is such a commendable solution of this problem, it appears to have been rather belated in making its appearance only at this stage of the proceedings. I would have thought that it would have been advanced earlier. Even the Road Haulage Association have not put this matter forward. In the long run it comes to this, that the original formula was considered very carefully on such expert advice as we could command. The number of vehicles at present in the scheme is not an unreasonable proportion, and therefore I see no reason at all, and no evidence has been advanced, why that figure should be whittled away. We have had quite a long Debate on this matter, and I hope that the House will now agree to a decision being made.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

I really do not think that the House can fully accept the demand made by the Minister in this case. I have listened to both Debates with the greatest care and have tried to find out exactly where the difference between the parties lies in this matter. Having heard the Minister, not for the first time, I have come to the conclusion that there is really nothing substantial in the argument he is putting forward. As I understand it, we start from the proposition upon which both parties are agreed—for the purpose of this Amendment long distance haulage, where-ever that may be defined, shall be taken over, and short distance haulage shall not be taken over. The Government have put forward the figure of 25 miles—I am simplifying the thing a great deal—and the Opposition have put forward the figure of 40 miles, which the right hon. Gentleman complains has been put forward rather late. I do not think there is anything in that. The only difference between the parties on that point is that the Opposition sought to be reasonable and the Government have been completely unrelenting.

Leaving aside the question of whether the figure was late or early, it seems to me that a difference in principle has emerged in this discussion. The Opposition claim that 40 miles is a more realistic figure than 25 miles as a definition of long distance haulage. I have not heard one argument—and I have listened very attentively—from the benches opposite to controvert that contention. On the contrary, the argument which is put forward to counter it does not seek to dispute the contention at all. It is put on totally different grounds. That argument is, "If we did admit that 40 miles was a more realistic figure and if we were to abandon the artificial figure of 25 miles, we should not get enough vehicles in our scheme." The only point which the House has to consider at this stage is whether or not that is an adequate argument with which to reply to the Opposition's contention. For my part I cannot be satisfied. After all, I should have thought that what the right hon. Gentleman gained on the swings with that argument, he would have lost on the roundabouts. If he takes the larger figure as a definition of long-distance haulage it is true that he will take fewer vehicles over, but he will have less work to do. If he takes the smaller figure, it is true he will get a great many more vehicles, but he will also have a great deal more work to do. If in a given stage the right hon. Gentleman is going to be faced with a shortage of vehicles to do the work which he has undertaken under the Bill, it can only be because for some reason or another he, plus the remains of private enterprise, are unable to provide the services that were provided by private enterprise before the Bill. That is a concession which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will be driven to make after years of experience, which it seems to me a little odd to find out now.

If the truth be that there are too few vehicles in the road haulage industry at the present time, the right hon. Gentleman has only to say so and it is open for him to order more, but if the truth be that the object of this relentless opposition to a series of Amendments put forward in a spirit of realism and compromise is to do the very thing which he has undertaken not to do, which is to nationalise the short-distance haulage, then I can only say there are more honourable ways of behaving than that in which the right hon. Gentleman would then be behaving. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can think, even at this late hour, of a totally new case, I myself am absolutely confirmed in my conviction that the Government opposition to the series of Amendments is not merely baseless, but mala fide.

Mr. Oliver Poole (Oswestry)

Nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments justifies even at this late stage pursuing the question any further, and if any further argument were needed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman it is to be found in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). However, there is one further reason why I should like to be allowed to address another word on this matter to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the fact that the Government have shifted their ground in the arguments which they have put forward. When we discussed this in Committee and later on Report, the argument broadly used was that some figure had to be selected and it was bound to be an arbitrary figure. The Minister now bases the whole of his argument on that statement that if there were this extended radius there would not be enough vehicles to carry out the work that the Commission have in mind. That is quite a different argument. It is not an argument that I would necessarily say, without a great deal of consideration, is one that could not be supported. It is not one with which I agree. It is only fair, if it is going to be put forward—and I think that it is almost the first time it has been stated in any detail—that this House should have more information. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to disagree with an Amendment of this kind, unless the Minister can tell us clearly, the figures that he has in mind, the number of vehicles that he expects to take over, the number of vehicles that he would be reduced to, and why he thinks that the larger number of vehicles is essential. We want the statistics upon which all this is based. We should not be asked to vote on this till we have had figures and know the basis of the arguments and calculations.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)

I hope hon. Members opposite will not make somnambulistic noises when I speak, because that will help me to go on at greater length. I must press for an answer to the questions fairly put by my hon. Friend. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many vehicles he will lose? That is a fair test. I think the point between the Opposition and the Government on the merits of this case is even narrower than that mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). The only point is how you measure the distance. There is a limit of 25 miles radius laid down first of all. Beyond that the Government state that vehicles can travel up to 39.9 miles. They never explain why in one case you should have that radius, and why, if you go beyond it, you go before the wretched tribunal. How many vehicles would the Government say would go into the scheme on their own system with a radius of 25 miles plus the distance measurement of 39.9 miles Would it be fewer in respect of a distance of 39.9 miles than if you merely had a radius of 40 miles? That is the point I really think we ought to be told about. It is as narrow as that. Before we are asked to go to the trouble of walking through the Division Lobbies, could we have an answer? It is, after all, the Parliamentary Secretary's case. It is his case that he will lose a lot of vehicles. Could he tell us how many he will lose before we go to a Division?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

We do think that this question, which is of the greatest importance to the small haulier, must in fairness to the Committee be answered. We have most courteously, on several occasions, asked for a figure to which an answer has not been given.

Mr. Barnes

I gave the figures to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The right hon. Gentleman, I think, can scarcely ride out of it on that. He was asked about certain distances and he has not been able to give us those distances. This question of distances, as he knows, is very nearly the key of the Bill and the House should be given all possible information before it passes from this last occasion. We are not anxious that the discussion should go on—although if it is thought it should we are perfectly ready—but the point of the hauliers is a point of fundamental importance to the Bill and to the many small men who are going to be affected one way or the other and many of whom will be put out of business. Therefore, before we pass from this point, it is only reasonable and decent to the small men that the Minister should give statistics which have been asked for repeatedly on this side. If I were the Minister on the other side, and I were asked to give figures, even though I thought I had already dealt with the point, I should be only too glad to do so, to shorten discussion. I do not think it is an unreasonable question, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give us the information even if he thinks we are being unreasonable. Let him waive that point and give the information for which we are asking.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

I rise to say——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot rise to say. He can rise to ask permission to speak again.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

I was going to ask a question. I did not intend to speak a second time. The question was whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the actual numbers of the vehicles he would lose between the 25 miles and the 40 miles. '

Mr. Assheton (City of London)

I think we are entitled to be given this information. After all, the House has to come to a decision and we are lacking the information which would enable us to come to that decision. It is no good the Minister saying he has given us these figures; I have been listening to this Debate as carefully as other people, and we have not been given an answer. We want to know the difference between the proposal in this Bill and in the Amendment. If the Minister will say on what occasion he gave us these figures, I will be most obliged.

Mr. Barnes

I have given them.

Mr. Assheton

I want the Minister to tell us on what occasion he gave the figures. He has not given them tonight. I cannot conceive how he gave us the figure on any other occasion.

1.30 a.m.

Brigadier Mackeson (Hythe)

The Minister is misinformed in suggesting that we are already in possesion of these figures. I want to ask whether he has the figures or not. I should like to pursue another line. I believe that in not accepting this Amendment the Government are making a very grave mistake. On Wednesday we shall be appealed to for a tremendous effort to get this country out of the mess in economic manpower. For a considerable period a very large number of people in our transport services will be spending their time running about asking whether their concern is to be nationalised or not, just in the middle of one of the biggest economic crises that could have occurred. If the number could be reduced by taking over fewer lorries, there would be a decrease in the waste of man hours. It is a strong point, and the Minister will recognise in a year or two that he would have been well advised to consider and accept it.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

As the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) said tonight, the grounds on which the Minister indicated previously that he was supporting the 40-mile limit are different from those he has given tonight. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman said he supported that figure on the ground that some figure had to be chosen. Tonight he says the reason is that he would lose a lot of vehicles if he did not choose that figure. I hope he will clear the minds of those hon. Members who have asked questions, and also the minds of those who were not on the Committee. Tonight we are left in complete confusion as to the grounds on which he supports that figure. There is one other point I would like him to deal with. That is the proposal in page 48, line 36, to leave out Subsection (3). The Minister referred in his latter remarks to Clause 52. The effect of the omission of this provision would be that the distance is a measure of radius and not distance along the road. It seems to me that the Minister could well accept this Amendment, even if he persists in refusing the other two, on the grounds that under Clause 52 the matter is based entirely on radius for those vehicles left outside nationalisation. I should have thought, for the sake of unanimity alone, it would have been worth while. I hope the Minister will at least give us a reply to that.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

As the Bill also applies to Scotland, perhaps it may be permissible to speak on that subject. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will help me in my difficulty. He is familiar, like the right hon. Gentleman, with the roads in Scotland, England and Wales. Between the capital of the West, which is Glasgow, and the capital of Scotland, which is Edinburgh, there is a road 51 miles long. I want to know how many vehicles the Minister has in mind will be required for his scheme on that road, because vehicles run from Edinburgh 25 miles out and from Glasgow towards Edinburgh for 25 miles? There is a third location called Linlithgow, which is 25 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow. The effect of the Bill seems to me to disable Edinburgh hauliers from going to Glasgow because the maximum radius is 39.9 miles and the Glasgow hauliers from going to Edinburgh because they are limited to 39.9 miles. So one is setting up in fact a new centre of transport for that area—the royal burgh called Linlithgow.

That is what apparently will happen all over the country. Because of this classification of 25 miles or 39.9 miles, decentralisation is caused, which may in many ways be excellent for the whole of the transport industry. But questions such as the erection of suitable depots, the increase of employees in one area and the decrease of employees in others, all such questions are raised by this. In the North of Scotland, where long distances occur around the lakes and deviations of the coastline, there will be areas not served at all. I think the Minister, faced with a difficult problem—which, incidentally, is self-imposed and which he has assumed on his own broad shoulders—should explain to hon. Members who, having to face their constituents, will have to elucidate these matters.

If he will accept the example of these two capital cities, I shall be very grateful for his explanation. Scottish Members are entitled to this because there is no representative of Scotland on the Front Bench. Scotland has a very wide and long region which is undeveloped from the transport point of view. The Minister has planned for developing the roads in other parts of the United Kingdom and we are more deeply concerned about the coverage we are going to get in our transport. I hope we shall get this information. I do not mind sitting here very late to get it. Scotland will like to know how they will be affected in detail—if new depots are to be built and where; Which areas will need more men and which areas will need fewer men, and about new series of circuits of delivery. All these are implied in this question, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do something to elucidate this matter.

Mr. Frank Byers (Dorset, Northern)

I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister in this matter because surely it is the right of the House of Commons to have these figures? What is the difference between 25 miles and 40 miles radius?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Fifteen miles."]—We have already heard that the answer the Minister was protesting he had given to the hon. Member below the Gangway, was not the right answer and the hon. Member said it was not the answer he required. Has the Minister got the figures? I suspect he has not got them, and I believe that this is one of those occasions which has occurred throughout this Bill when the Minister does not know what he is going to do. He has no idea, no clue as to what he is taking over, for the simple reason that this Bill has not been worked out properly. If he wants to deny that accusation now is the time. I have raised this question on several occasions, on Report and Committee. We have had occasions arising when the Minister simply did not know. On one occasion the Parliamentary Secretary was caught with one leg in the Committee and the other with his advisers trying to find out the position because he simply did not know. I challenge the Minister now. If he does not state the difference then I shall conclude, and the House will conclude that he simply does not know.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I wish to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned" to give the Minister a chance of getting these figures. It is obvious——

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I am reluctant to intervene—[Interruption.] I have listened to this discussion quietly from a little further down. [Interruption.] At any rate, it is my right to speak, and I am going to exercise it. I had hoped that by the courtesy of the House it would have been possible for my right hon. and learned Friend to put his point. As it is not, I now ask leave to move that the Debate be adjourned in order to enable the Government to give the House information to which it is fully entitled. There are three explanations which the right hon. Gentleman can advance in defence of his attitude. He can say, and I understand that he is arguing, or at any rate his Friends are arguing for him, that the information has already been given. I have had some years of Parliamentary experience, and I have known Ministers think it wise to give information more than once if need be. If the only reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give the information now is because he has given it already, I suggest that it would be a good thing for him to give it again, and save himself and the House some trouble. [Interruption.] I make that suggestion to the House and to the Minister, and I am going to get it over in my own time, however long it takes.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith. North)


Mr. Eden

I am not in the least interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection.

Mr. Pritt

I am only asking the right hon. Gentleman to do what I suppose he does on 365 days in the year, and keep his temper.

Mr. Eden

When I am in need of lessons from the hon. and learned Gentleman I will come humbly to him. I seem to remember having to give him some advice on an earlier occasion, I think in 1940.

Mr. Pritt

I had completely forgotten it. However, it was not on the Transport Bill, so why not stick to that?

Mr. Eden

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would prefer to make my speech for me.

Mr. Pritt

I think I could do it better.

Mr. Eden

Perhaps I may continue my observations to the right hon. Gentleman without interference from any of Moscow's allies. I was about to say that the second alternative is this, that he has the information and does not wish to give it. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he would agree, that that would not be a fair or proper attitude to adopt to the House at this stage of the Bill. The third alternative is that he has not got the information. He will not think it unfair, I hope, if I say that the course of this discussion leads one inevitably, however reluctantly, to that conclusion. If that is the case, I think it would be franker, and more helpful to the Government, if he said so. All I ask is that he should treat the House fairly, on an issue on which he has been pressed with great courtesy by my hon. Friends for some considerable time. I do not think I can recall an occasion when questions have been put in such courteous fashion and the Minister has completely refused to give information on a relevant issue.

Mr. Digby (Dorset, Western)

On a number of occasions during the discussion of this Bill questions have been put to the Minister about the number of vehicles he is going to take over, and on more than one occasion he has based his case on the number of vehicles that he expected to get. We have had some estimate before of what number of vehicles the right hon. Gentleman expects to get on the basis of 25 miles. I think the figure was something like 20,000 "A" and "B" licence vehicles and 10,000 railway vehicles. I have seen——

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Speaker

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question now is, "That the Debate be adjourned." We have now to deal with the reasons for the adjournment of the Debate, not the reasons for and against the Amendment we were discussing before.

Mr. Digby

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to work up to that point. My submission is that it must be—as the Minister has been able to make estimates previously—it must be possible for him to make an estimate on this occasion in dealing with the Amendment. I do hot believe that we can consider the merits of this case properly until we have those figures, because the whole of the Government's case has been based on this question of the number of vehicles to be affected if the limit is extended from 25 miles to 40 miles. Without that information I do not think we can usefully give a decision on this matter.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I really was hoping I should not have to weary the House by speaking tonight, but we have now arrived at a point at which we are considering the Adjournment of the Debate and I am in favour of adjourning. I am open to be persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman against adjourning, if he will help me. I am perfectly sure he would like to help me. But having been overworked, most of us, for a long time, here we are arrived at a point at which the Government are so tired, are so worn out, that they do not even answer questions on their own Amendments. That shows the state at which the House has arrived, if the Government themselves, despite all their great knowledge and the fact that they have a couple of Law Officers—or more or less Law Officers—to help them do not know the answer to a very simple question. What greater case could we have for adjournment? The hon. and Jearned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) may be aspiring to come in and help to get the Government out of their difficulties. He may or may not. He is not over-generous in his help for the Government. Surely, at the end of one long Parliamentary day, and at the beginning of another day, an ordinary day, surely at this time someone on the Government benches—a leader of the Government, one of the main leaders, one of the "Big Five" or whatever you like to call them—surely, one might come to help us, especially as one Law Officer is about to drop off to sleep. We have no doubt whatever that it is wrong that the House, at a time like this, should be asked to go on dealing with a vast industry when the Government themselves, as at present shown, have not the haziest idea of their own Bill and what it means. That is one excellent reason for adjourning now. I could think of other reasons for adjourning. But my main object in speaking is to persuade the Minister, who is smiling in an attractive way, to tell us, if he can, if he wishes to have the chance to adjourn.

We can come back in due course and it may well be that the Minister could leave this until November. He would have had time by then to have thought it out. He has not had time to do so, and as he has not thought it out, I support my right hon. Friend because it is to the advantage of the nation and to the House of Commons, and certainly to the dignity of this House, that we should be treated differently. It is not a dignified thing for the House to be detained in this way, and we should adjourn. Such a step would be more kind to the House at the present moment for we should not have to continue to try to extract information from a Minister from whom we so often try to get something, but who, we find, has Seldom any information at all, although he wants to control everything in the shape of transport in this country.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

May I, in a very few words, emphasise that it is not in keeping with the traditions of this House that an Adjournment should not take place at this stage. The House is not being treated in a serious and dignified way. It is being treated frivolously by the Minister. One has to draw the line somewhere and one might as well take 40 as 25, for that is a comprehensible argument. But suddenly the Government have thought of a new argument. It may be that it was a cogent argument which has bubbled up in their minds, although they have no figures in support of it. The House is being treated in a flippant and frivolous way and in a manner not in keeping with its dignity.

Secondly, the Minister has not been man enough to admit that he has made a fool of himself. [Interruption.] I claim that he has tried to make a fool of the House, and has inevitably succeeded in doing the other. If the Minister would say that this is a sort of "hang-over "from the Bank Holiday spirit and that this idea has just occurred to him, then the House would be sympathetic; but he has given no explanation and the Debate should be adjourned because of the frivolous way the House has been treated. If it is a serious argument, there should be some explanation. If it is not, then there is no reason at all why we should not adjourn the Debate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I support my hon. Friends who have spoken for the Adjournment of the Debate. The position, as we on this side all know is, one of complete purgatory, but it is entirely self-imposed by the Government. There is no reason whatever why the Minister should not give the information asked for. It would be a kindly act to us on this side and I think it would also be helpful to his own supporters. There is no reason why these figures should not be made available. If the Minister has the figures, if, in fact, they are in existence, they should be made known. The Minister may have them in his pocket, although, assuming this state of purgatory in which the Government finds itself, it is likely that they have dropped out of his pocket. If that be so, let him go and get another copy. It should not take the right hon. Gentleman long to do so.

I feel particularly concerned with this matter, for in the part of the country that I have the honour to represent there will be complete confusion of mind unless some more precise information is available, for this reason: there is proposed, and, I understand, sanctioned, approved and blessed even by the Minister himself, the project of the building of the Severn Bridge. Now if the Severn Bridge is built—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not realise the fact that its construction means the making of a roadway? I am delighted if hon. Members do realise that. The Minister will realise the implication of that. Instead of road transport having to go across the ferry he would have to build across the river. I would ask for the Adjournment so that I can clear my mind—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite never want to clear their minds. Perhaps in the middle of this week they will have some opportunity of attempting to do so. My constituents would like to have their minds clear. I would ask hon. Members opposite if the Minister has done anything to clear their minds at all—certainly he has refused and replied that he is unable to do anything to clear their minds because he has not the figures to enable him to do so. In the circumstances we are quite entitled to ask that the Debate should be adjourned in order that we should get the facts, in order that we should know whether the Minister has the facts, and in order that the country should know whether the Minister knows what he is talking about.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I should like to sum up to the House the position in which we are left in this Debate and the reasons why my right hon. Friend and all of us on these Benches think that the Debate should not be continued until this information is forthcoming. The only argument that has been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman against this Amendment is the number of vehicles that the Commission would be able to get, and the alleged fact that that number would be reduced below a workable number. It is important, when we are considering whether the Debate should be adjourned, that we should realise the state of our knowledge on this point. We were originally told that on the double test of the 25 miles radius and the 40 carriage the Minister would take over approximately 20,000 "A" licence vehicles, 2,500 "B" licence vehicles, and, in addition, 10,000—that is the number generally accepted—of railway vehicles. That is, he was aiming at a total number of 32,500 vehicles. As will be remembered, the Amendment which we did not get the opportunity to discuss but which was moved here, on which we were guillotined, was then moved in another place. That was to extend the radius to 50 miles and the carriage to 80 miles. On that, the information which the Government was able to give—and I only quote, of course, from what their spokesman gave in another place; the Lord Chancellor said, "I cannot give an exact number of vehicles, but if I said there would be nearer 2,000 than 20,000 "—referring to the "A" licence vehicles—I should probably be as near as anyone else. That was the remarkable state of knowledge of the Government a month ago.

2.0 a.m.

After that, the Amendment came back to this House. When we were discussing the last Amendment on that occasion, the Government still had no knowledge of the Amendments which were then suggested to 50 miles radius and 80 miles carry. Then, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, in a spirit of reasonable compromise, that was reduced, wiping out the carry to a radius of 40 miles. The right hon. Gentleman got up tonight and in a speech of very few words said that would not give him enough vehicles. An hour and a quarter ago, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) asked for this number of vehicles. An hour and a quarter of our time at this stage of the night, and at this stage of the Session, would have been saved if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary had given us the number of these vehicles. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary have not taken the trouble, a month after this point was raised in another place, after it has been discussed in that place, raised here, and discussed here, to find that figure or to give us an approximation of that figure, then it does become a mockery to continue our Debate and to take away the livelihood and the businesses of people as hon. Members opposite—especially those who think they are going to do well out of it for the railway workers—are ready to do without a quiver and without a qualm. Surely the time has come when we who do feel for these people should get these figures. The Home Secretary smiles. I would remind him of a favourite saving of his: A smile becomes him as the silver handles become a coffin.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

That is quite wrong.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It is near enough for the right hon. Gentleman, and that is exactly what his smile means to the road hauliers. That is the position, and I have not overstated by a hair's breadth the position regarding the information which this House has got. In those circumstances I do suggest that it is impossible to continue the Debate unless somebody in the Government can get this information and give it to the House tonight.

Mr. Wadsworth (Buckrose)

I must protest against a certain amount of what appears to be irresponsibility on the part of the Government. This Transport Bill is one of the most important Bills which we have had before this House in this Session. Yet on this occasion, the Minister of Transport will not give us the proper information. I am informed, that there has been no survey made of the transport industry since this Bill was contemplated. In other words, the whole Bill has been based on guesswork. Surely, with such a major Bill as this, it is irresponsibility on the part of the Government to bring it before this House without proper information? Do Hon. Members opposite know the answer to the queries which have been made? I would declare that they do not. I also declare that the Minister himself is not informed sufficiently. We should be informed regarding the difference between the 25 miles limit and the 40 miles limit. Why did the Government decide that they would take over vehicles up to the 25 miles limit in any case? What information

Division No. 358.] AYES. [2.4 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Hardy, E. A. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Harrison, J. Mort, D. L.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Moyle, A.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nally, W.
Attewell, H. C. Herbison, Miss M. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Austin, H. Lewis Hewitson, Capt. M Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Hobson, C. R Noel-Buxton, Lady
Barton, C. Holman, P. Oliver, G. H.
Bechervaise, A. E. House, G. Orbach, M.
Bing, G. H. C. Hoy, J. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Binns, J. Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.) Palmer, A. M. F.
Blackburn, A. R. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pargiter, G. A.
Blyton, W. R. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Parkin, B. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Piratin, P.
Bramall, E. A. Irving, W. J. Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Buchanan, G. Jay, D. P. T. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Burke, W. A. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Champion, A. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Price, M. Philips
Collindridge, F. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Pritt, D. N.
Collins, V. J. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Proctor, W. T.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Keenan, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Cove, W. G Kenyon, C. Rangsr, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) King, E. M. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Deer, G. Kinley, J. Rhodes, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lavers, S. Robens, A.
Diamond, J Lee, F. (Hulme) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Dobbie, W. Leonard, W. Rogers, G. H. R.
Dodds, N. N. Levy, B. W. Sargood, R.
Driberg, T. E. N. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Scollan, T.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lindgren, G. S. Segal, Dr. S.
Dumpleton, C. W. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Shackleton, E. A. A.
Dye, S. Longden, F. Sharp, Granville
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lyne, A. W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Fairhurst, F. McAdam, W. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Field, Captain W. J. McAllister, G. Shurmer, P
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McGhee, H G. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Foot, M. M. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Simmons, C. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Skeffington, A. M.
Gibbins, J. McLeavy, F. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Gibson, C. W Mallalieu, J. P. W Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Gilzean, A. Mann, Mrs. J. Sparks, J. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mayhew, C P. Stephen, C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Medland, H. M Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Mellish, R. J. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Gunter, R. J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Stross, Dr. B.
Guy, W. H. Mikardo, Ian Stubbs, A. E.
Hale, Leslie Mitchison, G. R. Swingler, S.
Hall, W. G. Monslow, W. Symonds, A. L.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

had they? Did they put figures into a hat and draw one out? We would like information, in any case, why they decided that the 25 miles limit should be imposed. I have been through the Committee stage and the Report stage, and I have heard the various Amendments dealt with and on no occasion have we learned why the 25 miles limit has been fixed. I ask the Minister in all fairness, to treat the House with proper respect and to give an answer to a question which is a very reasonable one.

Mr. Whiteley

rose in his place and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 77.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpath) Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Well's, W. T. (Walsall) Wise, Major F. J
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) West, D. G. Woodburn, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Wyatt, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Yates, V. F
Thurtle, Ernest Wigg, Col. G. E. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Tiffany, S. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Zilliacus, K
Tolley, L. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston) Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.
Weitzman, D. Willis, E.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge) Pitman, I. J.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Head, Brig. A. H, Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Baldwin, A. E. Hogg, Hon. Q. Raikes, H. V.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Rayner, Brig. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J. Sanderson, Sir F.
Bossom, A. C. Hurd, A. Spearman, A. C. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lambert, Hon. G. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Byers, Frank Law, Rt. Hon. R K. Sutcliffe, H.
Channon, H. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Teeling, William
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Low, Brig, A. R. W. Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Toucha, G. C.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Vane, W. M. F.
Digby, S. W. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Wadsworth, G.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Drayson, G. B. Marples, A. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Drewe, C Marshall, D. (Bodmin) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Mellor, Sir J. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Nicholson, G. York, C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Nield, B. (Chester)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Major Conant and Major Ramsay
Grimston, R. V. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Division No. 359.] AYES. [2.14 a.m
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Pitman, I. J
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Head, Brig. A. H. Pools, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Baldwin, A. E. Hogg, Hon. Q. Raikes, H. V.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Rayner, Brig. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J. Sanderson, Sir F.
Bossom, A. C. Hurd, A. Spearman, A. C. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lambert, Hon. G. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Byers, Frank Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Sutcliffe, H.
Channon, H. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Teeling, William
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Low, Brig. A. R. W. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Touche, G. C.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Vane, W. M F.
Digby, S. W. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Wadsworth, G.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Drayson, G. B. Marples, A. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Drewe, C Marshall, D. (Bodmin) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Mellor, Sir J. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Matt-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Nicholson, G. York, C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Nield, B. (Chester)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Major Conant and Major Ramsay.
Grimston, R. V. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Austin, H. Lewis Binns, J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Blackburn, A. R.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Barton, C. Blyton, W. R.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Bechervaise, A. E. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Attewell, H. C. Bing, G. H. C. Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 178.

Bramall, E. A Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Buchanan, G Keenan, W Rogers, G. H. R
Burke, W. A Kenyon, C. Sargood, R
Champion, A. J King, E. M Scollan, T.
Collindridge, F. Kinley, J. Segal, Dr. S.
Collins, V. J. Lavers, S. Shackleton, E A. A
Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.) Lee, F. (Hulme) Sharp, Granville
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Levy, B. W. Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Deer, G. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Shurmer, P.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Diamond, J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Simmons, C. J.
Dobbie, W. Longden, F Skeffington, A. M.
Dodds, N. N. Lyne, A. W. Smith, S H. (Hull, S. W.)
Driberg, T. E. N. McAdam, W. Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Dugdate, J. (W. Bromwich) McAllister, G. Sparks, J. A.
Dumpleton, C. W. McGhee, H. G Stephen, C.
Dye, S. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Fairhurst, F. McLeavy, F. Stross, Dr. B.
Field, Captain W. J. Mallalieu, J. P W Stubbs, A. E.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mann, Mrs. J Swingler, S.
Foot, M. M. Mayhew, C P Symonds, A. L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Medland, H M Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Gibbins, J. Mellish, R. J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Gibson, C. W Middleton, Mrs L. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Gilzean, A. Mikardo, Ian Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Monslow, W Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Griffiths, W D (Moss Side) Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.) Thurtle, Ernest
Gunter, R. J Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Tiffany, S.
Guy, W. H Moyle, A. Tolley, L.
Hale, Leslie Nally, W. Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)
Hall, W. G. Nichol, Mrs M E. (Bradford, N.) Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Weitzman, D
Hardy, E. A. Noel-Buxton, Lady Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Harrison, J. Oliver, G. H. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Orbach, M. West, D. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Herbison, Miss M. Palmer, A. M. F Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Hewitson, Capt M Pargiter, G. A. Wigg, Col. G. E.
Hobson, C. R Parkin, B. T. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland.
Holman, P Paton, J. (Norwich) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
House, G Piratin, P. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Hoy. J Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Hudson, d. H. (Ealing, W) Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Willis, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Hughes, H D (Wolverhampton W) Price, M. Philips Wise, Major F. [...]
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Pritt, D. N. Woodburn, A
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Proctor, W T Wyatt, W
Irving, W. J. Pursey, Cmdr. H Yates, V F
Jay, D. P T. Ranger, J. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Jeger, Dr S. W (St Pancras, S. E.) Reid, T (Swindon) Zilliacus, K
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools) Rhodes, H
Jones, J. H (Bolton) Robens, A TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. C. Williams

Now we can return and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give these figures about which there seems to be considerable dispute. I have listened to a number of speeches on this matter and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in his wisdom seems to think the point a very big one. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) narrowed down the point to a comparatively small one. He did that with great skill and excellence. Two able lawyers on the side to which I have the honour of belonging have different points of view as to, what these figures may be. What is more noticeable is that on the whole of the other side not only are the Ministers ignorant and know nothing about this—I am sorry to use that harsh word about the Government—but those on the back benches opposite are apparently completely lacking in any knowledge or any understanding of what the Minister really want us to do.

That brings us to a very important point: a point we should undoubtedly know. I will not go into the details about all those concerned with the 25 miles, the 39.9, 40 or 50. I would like to point out the effect on the livelihood of the people of this country. It affects my constituency in Torquay and other towns such as Plymouth, and many other places all around the coast. We are now being asked to leave the House of Commons in a few days' time to go back to our constituents having just done something of which we have the haziest idea. Hon. Members will be asked by their constituents what was done in the House of Commons about 2.30 a.m. and what it was that the Minister did not tell us.

The Minister, who is a kindly soul generally, ought to give us this information so that there may be no disputing it and there may be no trouble. It has been pointed out that if he has the figures he could give that explanation in a very few words. The whole of this trouble could have been avoided if he had followed his natural inclination and that wisdom which he sometimes shows, but he has not done so. The very fact that he has denied us here when he is supposed to know can only mean that outside it will be thought that he is hiding something, and that is not his intention, I am sure. It may be thought that he has not been supplied with the proper information, and that I am sure is the case. If that is so he is asking the House of Commons to vote completely and absolutely blindly, on a matter affecting the lives and livelihood of many tens of thousands of people and to vote blindly on a matter of transport on the eve of a terrific crisis.

For that reason I really suggest to him, if he and the Government are asking the country to treat them seriously, that he should give an answer. When they are dealing with the lives of people outside and are taking the Transport Bill through its last stages, and we ask a question which affects one of the biggest issues in the Bill, which the Government want so badly, and they have not taken the trouble apparently to find out the figures, is that really a thing which is going to make the people think the Government are serious in anything they are doing? May I put a further question to the Government? We know now that they do not know a very great deal about the figures. In this matter we have not heard whether they intend to relax in any way the peculiar position of certain areas, in that it is not possible to carry ordinary road transport more than a certain distance in certain directions. If one is living in or near a sea port, one is circumscribed, and, no one yet on the Government Bench has endeavoured to show how the problems of these particular areas like Torquay or other seaside towns will be met.

2.30 a.m.

The suggestion I wish to make to the Government is—the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) need not be afraid; I am not going to refer to her, except to notice that she is there—that they cannot give the figures because they have worked out nice automatic figures for what happens in the case of a town that is 25 miles inland, but have not been able to work out any figures for the towns at the seaside. That is the only reason that has been given so far why we have not got the figures. I have only made one or two remarks on this question, which vitally affects the lives of many people in the county in which I live. We have not been allowed to hear anything about the effects of the matter on Wales, and the members of the Welsh Party have not been able to express any opinion on it.

There are large numbers of hon. Members who have not been able to put their case properly. I have tried to put mine—I am glad hon. Members opposite appreciate that this is matter on which they can afford to laugh at their own Government, who have not the haziest idea even at this stage how many people they are going to throw out of a job—and I thank hon. Members opposite for giving me the opportunity. It is a monstrous way of treating the House of Commons. It is a monstrous abuse of the power of a great majority, a power which has been used as no majority has ever used it before, to refuse to give not only to the House but to the country as a whole the figures on which the Government base their estimates for destroying the livelihood of those men and women who kept transport going in the wartime, to whom the Government had to appeal to get them out of their difficulties last spring, and bring food to the people. I would ask that out of respect for those people, and respect for the dignity of the House of Commons, the Government should not refuse to give the figures.

Mr. Lord John Hope (Midlothian and Peebles, Northern)

If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government persist in this refusal to give these figures, which have been fairly asked for, they will have done a most remarkable thing, they will have surpassed in footling ineptitude the performance they put up in the Conscription Bill—and more than that I cannot say.

Mr. Whiteley

rose in his place and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Division No. 360.] AYES. [2.40 a.m.
Adam", Richard (Balham) Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton W.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Rhodes, H.
Allan, Scholefield (Crewe) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Robens, A.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Irving, W. J. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Attewell, H. C. Jay, D. P. T. Rogers, G. H. R.
Austin, H. Lewis Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S E.) Sargood, R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Scollan, T.
Barton, C. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Segal, Dr. S.
Becherwaise, A E. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bing, G. H. C. Keenan, W. Sharp, Granville
Binns, J. Kenyon, C. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Blackburn, A. R. King, E. M. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)
Blyton, W. R. Kinley, J. Shurmer, P.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Lavers, S. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Lee, F. (Hulme) Simmons, C. J.
Bramall, E. A. Leonard, W. Skeffington, A. M.
Buchanan, G. Levy, B. W. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W)
Burke, W. A Lewis, A. W. J (Upton) Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Champion, A. J Lindgren, G. S. Sparks, J. A.
Collins, V. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Stephen, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W) Longden, F. Stewart, Capt- Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cove, W. G. Lyne, A. W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McAdam, W. Stross, Dr. B.
Deer, G. McAllister, G. Stubbs, A. E.
de Freitas, Geoffroy McGhee, H G. Swingler, S.
Diamond, J. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Symonds, A. L.
Dobbie, W. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Dodds, N. N. McLeavy, F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Driberg, T. E. N. Mallalieu, J. P W Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Mann, Mrs. J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Dumpleton, C. W. Mayhew, C. P. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Medland, H. M. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fairhurst, F. Mellish, R. J. Thurtle, Ernest
Field, Captain W. J. Middleton, Mrs. L Tiffany, S.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mikardo, lan Tolley, L.
Foot, M. M. Mitchison, G. R. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Monslow, W Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow)
Gibbins, J. Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.) Weitzman, D.
Gibson, C. W. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Gilzean, A. Moyle, A Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nally, W. West, D. G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Nicholls, H. R (Stratford) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gunter, R. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady Wigg, Col. G. E.
Guy, W. H. Oliver, G. H. Willey, F. T (Sunderland)
Hale, Leslie Orbach, M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Hall, W. G. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Palmer, A. M. F Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Hardy, E. A. Pargiter, G. A. Willis, E.
Harrison, J. Parkin, B. T. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Paton, J. (Norwich) Wise, Major F. J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Piratin, P. Woodburn, A.
Herbison, Miss M. Platts-Mills, J. F. F Wyatt, W.
Hewitson, Capt. M Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Yates, V. F
Hobson, C. R. Porter, E. (Warrington) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Holman, P. Price, M. Philips Zilliacus, K.
House, G. Pritt, D. N.
Hoy, J. Proctor, W. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Pursey, Cmdr. H Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ranger, J.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Channon, H. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Clarke, Col. R. S. Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Baldwin, A. E. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Crowder, Capt. John E. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Bossom, A. C. Darling, Sir W. Y. Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Digby, S. W. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Grimston, R V.
Byers, Frank Drayson, G. B. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 76.

Hogg, Hon. Q. Mellar, Sir J. Sutcliffe, H.
Hope, Lord J. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E Teeling, William
Hurd, A. Nicholson, G. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Nield, B. (Chester) Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)
Lambert, Hon. G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Touche, G. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Vane, W. M. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Peto, Brig. C. H M. Wadsworth, G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Pitman, I. J. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Low, Brig. A. R. W Raikes, H. V. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Ramsay, Major S Williams, C. (Torquay)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R Rayner, Brig. R. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maclay, Hon. J. S Sanderson, Sir F. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Spearman, A. C. M. York, C.
Marples, A. E. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. O. Poole

(seated and covered) On a point of Order. Am I right in understanding that we are not voting on all three Amendments in page 48, but only on that in page 48, line 23?

Mr. Speaker

I put all three Amendments together because they all hang together. They are one Lords Amendment. They are one suggested Lords Amendment, an Amendment to which we objected. They, therefore, hang together and must be put together.

Division No. 361.] AYES. [2.45 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Foot, M. M. Kinley, J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Lavers, S.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gibbins, J. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Anderson, A, (Motherwell) Gibson, C. W Leonard, W.
Attewell, H. C. Gilzean, A. Levy, B. W.
Austin, H. Lewis Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Lindgren, G. S.
Barton, C. Griffiths, W. O. (Moss Side) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Bechervaise, A. E. Gunter, R. J Longden, F.
Bing, G. H. C. Guy, W H. Lyne, A. W.
Binns, J. Hale, Leslie McAdam, W.
Blackburn, A. R. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil McAllister, G.
Blyton, W. R. Hardy, E. A. McGhee, H G
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Harrison, J. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Bramall, E. A Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) McLeavy, F.
Buchanan, G Herbison, Miss M. Mann, Mrs. J.
Burke, W. A Hewitson, Capt. M Mayhew, C. P.
Champion, A. J Hobson, C. R. Medland, H. M.
Collins, V. J. Holman, P. Mellish, R. J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) House, G. Middleton, Mrs. L
Cove, W. G. Hoy, J. Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Mitchison, G. R.
Deer, G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Monslow, W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Diamond, J. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Dobbie, W. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Moyle, A.
Dodds, N. N. Irving, W. J. Nally, W.
Driberg, T. E. N. Jay, D. P. T. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Dumpleton, C. W. Jones, D T (Hartlepools) Noel-Buxton, Lady
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Oliver, G. H.
Fairhurst, F. Keenan, W. Orbach, M.
Field, Captain W. J. Kenyon, C. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) King, E. M. Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Poole

Further to that point of Order, Sir. It was agreed on the previous occasion by you that although Amendments would be taken together in blocks, when it came to a question of dividing on them we should, if we wished to do so, take all three separately.

Mr. Speaker

That is another point altogether. We disagreed with the Lords in one Amendment. They sent back a suggested Amendment which they divided into three separate parts. They all hang together. Although they are three, they are really three in one.

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 76.

Pargiter, G. A. Shurmer, P Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)
Parkin, B. T. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.)
Paton, J. (Norwich) Skeffington, A. M. Weitzman, D.
Pearson, A. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Piratin, P. Snow, Capt. J. W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F. Soskice, Maj. Sir F West, D. G.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Sparks, J. A White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington) Stephen, C. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Price, M. Philips Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Pritt, D. N. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Proctor, W. T. Stross, Dr B. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Pursey, Cmdr. H Stubbs, A. E. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Ranger, J. Swingler, S. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Reid, T. (Swindon) Symonds, A. L. Willis, E.
Robens, A. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wills, Mrs E. A
Robertson, J. J, (Berwick) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wise, Major F. J
Rogers, G. H. R. Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet) Woodburn, A
Sargood, R Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Yates, V. F.
Scollan, T. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Segal, Dr. S. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Zilliacus, K.
Shackleton, E. A. A. Thurtle, Ernest
Sharp, Granville Tiffany, S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Tolley, L. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hogg, Hon. Q Raikes, H. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Hope, Lord J. Ramsay, Major S
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J. Rayner, Brig. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hurd, A. Sanderson, Sir F.
Bossom, A. C. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W Spearman, A. C M
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lambert, Hon. G. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Byers, Frank Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Sutcliffe, H.
Channon, H. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Teeling, William
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Low, Brig. A. R. W Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Mackeson, Brig. H R Touche, G. C.
Darling, Sir W Y Maclay, Hon. J S. Vane, W. M. F.
Digby, S. W. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Wadsworth, G.
Dower, Lt.-Col A. V G. (Penrith) Marples, A. E. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Drayson, G. B. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Drewe, C. Mellor, Sir J White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Nicholson, G. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, H. C. P (Stone) Nield, B. (Chester) York, C
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. Orr-Ewing, I. L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Commander Agnew and
Grimston, R. V. Pitman, I. J. Major Conant.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)