HC Deb 29 June 1948 vol 452 cc2090-107

Amendment made: In page 2, line 27, leave out "any goods," and insert: goods of any description."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 33 to 36, and to insert: Provided that any reference made under this subsection where the prevalence of the conditions in question is expressly authorised by or under any enactment, other than the enactments relating to patents or trade marks, shall be so framed as to limit the investigation and report to the facts, that is to say, to the question whether conditions to which this Act applies in fact prevail and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, and to the things which are done by the parties concerned as a result or for the purpose of preserving those conditions. The Amendment is drafted to meet an objection which was raised in Committee that, as Parliament had decided that certain statutory monopolies were in the public interest, it would be wrong to leave to a commission the question whether Parliament had made the right decision. In order to meet that point this Amendment has been drafted to limit an inquiry in the case of a statutory monopoly to a report on the facts. Since this point came up in Committee the state of the nationalised industries has become a matter of graver concern to us all, irrespective of party. The discussions at the Scarborough Conference showed one angle from which these matters had obviously been causing grave thought to the party opposite; and the discussions we have had in this House, together with the further information we have received, has only increased that anxiety.

I would emphasise that this is not a question of whether one agrees or disagrees with nationalisation. I happen to disagree strongly with nationalisation, for reasons into which it would be quite irrelevant for me to go now. But that fact does not alter my intense desire to see this country put out every effort it can to deal with its present economic difficulties; and I do not think that this country can put out every effort unless every possible step is taken to secure the efficient functioning of coal, transport and electricity. I do not think anyone would disagree with me on that. The question is: will this Bill improve these industries as regards their efficient functioning?

In Committee I suggested—and in so doing I was only re-echoing in a slightly different form what has been said on various occasions by the Lord President and others who have done the pioneer work in considering nationalisation and the circumstances under which nationalised industries must function—that there were three pre-requisites of efficient functioning: first, self-supporting finance; secondly, some form of efficiency audit by which the working of the industry is compared with the working of similar industries abroad, and in this country in other times, whether nationalised or under private enterprise; and thirdly, an effective consumers' check. Now, I believe that some sort of inquiry such as is envisaged in this Amendment would work towards the achievement of those desirable things.

As was said by the President of the Board of Trade in another connection, one criticism that is made of every monopoly—and hon. Members know that it is one to which I have given serious attention—is inertia and readiness to accept conditions which are easy instead of bringing about improvement by dealing with the difficult tasks. I believe that, if there were a process by which nationalised industries, or portions of them, could be referred to some body in order to see whether the conditions I have mentioned were operating, or to ascertain those things in the industry which prevent them operating, then that would assist in producing greater health and a better condition in the industry.

Let me now meet the point which the Lord President has made on certain occasions, that we on this side of the House use any stick with which to beat the nationalised industries. That really is not the position obtaining in this connection at all. We have here the problem of the state of these industries. Through various provisions in the nationalisation Acts we have lost some of the rights of complaint which existed with regard to those industries under private enterprise; and, of course, we have lost that great weapon and spur to efficiency—the consumers' free choice. Therefore, we feel that if the question of how a certain industry, or part of it, was functioning, were referred to this committee there would be applied to it exactly the same sort of probe and inquiry as will be applied to industries under private enterprise; and there would not be—and this was the gravamen of the objection to this suggested course of action—an overriding of the opinion of this House on the question of "public interest"; that would be ruled out.

As regards the constitutional position, I see no difficulty. The Government responsibility is the collective responsibility of the Cabinet I believe that it could be left to the President of the Board of Trade to institute the inquiry, because the proper way in which it would work out inside Governmental circles would be that the Minister—who is, so to speak, the godfather of the nationalised industry—would, if he objected to the suggested inquiry, take it up with the President of the Board of Trade, and if they could not come to an agreement the matter would be dealt with at Cabinet level—as, indeed, it should be, because it is a most important matter.

7.30 p.m.

I have limited my remarks to the nationalised industries, because I hope that other forms of statutory monopolies, in the various agricultural schemes and the like, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But the same arguments, in a slightly different form, apply to inquiries into these various statutory schemes. The main point is this. We are all anxious to produce efficiency over the whole field of production. In this Bill, we have joined in trying to improve the efficiency of the machinery which has been designed to deal with a certain restriction of production in private enterprise which may occur. I do not think anyone who has paid attention to this Bill can say that the Opposition has been anything but co-operative in its approach to it.

Therefore, in so far as the system for which we stand and in which we believe is concerned, we put it into the common pool with the machinery of inquiry, so that this efficiency will be maintained. What we are asking, I suggest, is a most reasonable request—that hon. Gentlemen who believe, as we do not believe, in a different system, should nevertheless find some means of inquiry so that efficiency will not only be maintained, but that it will be manifest to the population of this country that it is being maintained. It is in no narrow sense of party advantage that we are moving this Amendment. It is in deep anxiety for the position in which our country is placed, and with a deep desire to use every method to improve it.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I would like to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at the words which we are trying to remove, they will see that what they are saying in this Clause is that, if the conditions in question—these so-called monopoly conditions—have been created by any statute or other enactment, then the Monopoly Commission shall be prevented from having them referred to it. As I see it, that is really driving a coach-and-four through the whole provisions of this Bill. If we are really anxious to see that the full light of day is thrown on these monopolies, whether they are State, private or public monopolies, we must allow the Government to refer any monopoly to this Commission. I realise that the Government and their supporters, at the present time, are a bit squeamish and sensitive about these nationalised industries. I think they have gained a great deal of good from the bracing air of Scarborough, and that they have become actually more far-sighted about their schemes not having been well worked out.

I want however to avoid saying anything contentious, and to deal with these public monopolies that are not necessarily the creations of the present Socialist Government. Of course, there are a great many. After all, if these words go through, we are not merely removing from reference to the Monopoly Commission the Coal Commission, the Railway Executive or the Electricity Authority; we are removing any large monopoly in this country which has been created by any statute. If we had, as I remember was suggested by a former hon. Member of this House, Mr. Chorley, who has since died, a water grid and a large water authority which monopolised the water system of the country, if this proviso was inserted in the Bill, it would mean that the Board of Trade could never refer that water grid to the Monopoly Commission, although the consumers of the country might be gravely injured by that monopoly.

Let me now come to actual instances. In 1936, an Act of Parliament was passed which dealt with the reorganisation of the sugar industry. Under that Act, there was set up the British Sugar Corporation, under whose control the whole of the buying, selling and processing of sugar was placed. There was no question here of the 33⅓ per cent. monopoly, about which we are talking, but of a complete monopoly for the whole of the sugar trade of this country. If this proviso is left in the Bill, that Sugar Corporation is completely removed, and becomes one of the fortunate few monopolies which this Socialist Government nurse as their cherished children, and can never have the attention of the Monopoly Commission drawn to it. I read, from time to time, reports brought out on the different aspects of the problems of the present day. They usually have on them the names of a certain number of the Government's supporters or those who agree with their views, and, in all these reports, we find that the solution is that there should be a Commission appointed to manage the concern.

Let us take, for instance, the Lucas Committee which reported on marketing, and recommended a monopoly Commission that would be allowed to trade in the product and to manage the product, under the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, we had another of these documents—the report of the Williams Committee dealing with milk. Again, we had a solution that there should be a Milk Commission which was to have a complete monopolistic control over the milk trade of the country and be able to trade in milk. If this proviso goes in, these Commissions will be entirely removed from the gaze of the Monopoly Commission.

This Amendment is designed to secure that these monopolies shall be subject to the scrutiny of the Monopoly Commission, but they will be in a different position, like that of a private monopoly, in that it will be the function of the Commission to report on the facts about them but not to make recommendations thereon. That seems to me to be the correct solution. If the Government say that what Parliament has created can only be altered by another Act of Parliament, I do not see the reason of it. If we make mistakes, it is for us to undo the mistakes, but, at least, we want to be able to know what is happening to our mistakes. You, Mr. Speaker, at present find it embarrassing when we try to investigate the mistakes of the Socialist Government, because it is not easy to question Ministers about the mistakes for which they are responsible. However, to get away from the contentious, there are other mistakes that are frequently made by different Governments in setting up these large Commissions which themselves make mistakes. Unless we have some body like the Monopoly Commission examining them, I think the practice of public life has shown that it will be quite impossible for us to know what is happening.

I remember, many years before the war, we introduced the bacon marketing scheme—a large monopoly which had a centralised control over the whole of the bacon factories of the country, and which prevented any new bacon factory starting. I remember how hard it was to get the facts of the situation brought out into the glare of publicity in order to enable more bacon factories to be set up and the quality of British bacon to be improved. Under this Bill that type of board will be removed from the scrutiny of the Monopoly Commission by the accident of having been created by the Bacon Industry Act, 1938. Surely that is entirely wrong.

I would ask the Government to consider seriously this problem, to forget for a moment their Scarborough sensitivity and to approach it from a broadminded angle. The mere fact that Parliament has created a monopoly should not prevent the scrutiny of what is happening and the report to Parliament. The Lucas Committee bears me out when I believe that the type of check on the State-created monopoly of a consumers' committee or consumers' advisory council is not effective in protecting the consumer or in bringing the facts of the State monopoly into the full light of day. It was not a satisfactory solution in the Socialist Marketing Act, 1931. I do not make any party capital in saying that it was Lord Addison's Marketing Act, and not one of ours, that created the difficulty. I make my comparison only because when I used the illustration of Marketing Acts at an earlier stage certain hon. Members opposite thought that all agricultural Marketing Acts had been passed by previous Conservative Governments. This particular one, however, was passed by Lord Addison who, I believe, is still a Socialist.

If consumers' committees and advisory councils are not the most effective method of checking these State monopolies, then let us give this Monopoly Commission, or whatever it is to be called, the work to do. By that means we can make this Measure a better one.

Mr. Shepherd

The Government should feel very much indebted to the Opposition for making this compromise possible for them. I do not anticipate that those expectations will be realised because gratitude and humility are not qualities to be found in any abundance on the Government Front Bench. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not expect us to ignore the fact that it is ironical that at one moment the President should insist upon retaining the word "monopoly" in the title, and then insists upon State monopolies being excluded from the purview of the Bill. I think it was true that the Government had a case before in saying that, public interest having been decided by Parliament in the form of a national corporation, it would be wrong for a body of this character to set it aside. The Amendment, however, allows the Government to save its face and to get the advantages of an efficiency audit, by a body of independence and experience, to determine whether the nationalised corporation is working efficiently.

7.45 p.m.

The existence of an expert board is of great importance. It is much better to have a Monopoly Commission investigating a national corporation than the suggestion which seems to be floating around Whitehall that we should have a Commission headed, of all people, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to inquire whether the nationalised corporations are being efficiently conducted. Even if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster commanded the greatest possible confidence in all sections of the country, it would be more desirable if some permanent body, with continuity of experience, were to judge these matters instead of a Commission set up under a Minister who was a spare body introduced into the Government on the grounds of sympathy or otherwise.

It is important to realise that State monopoly has all the disadvantages of private monopoly. It has a better chance of developing the evils than private monopoly, because in most cases private monopoly has the shadow of competition before it. If it does not do certain things—if it is not efficient, if it does not give a good output and does not sell at reasonable prices—somebody else will come along and sell his goods and put them out of business. But in the case of a State monopoly there is complete protection for inefficiency. I am fortified in pressing this Amendment by the statement of the President only a few moments ago that the complaint against monopolies is not that they are necessarily restrictive, but that they become inefficient. That is the case. It is all the more reason why the President should recognise such difficulties to be inherent in monopolies, that he should agree to the Commission's looking into the facts of a nationalised corporation.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that they have found the truer, nobler and better way of conducting industry; if they really think they have hit upon something which has escaped the feebler intellects on this side; if they believe that their method of conducting an economy is the best that can be devised, or even if it is only just better than that in which we believe, they should have no hesitation in subjecting their creation to the test of this Commission. They should rejoice, as many so-called private monopolists will rejoice, in having their case put before the Commission. Many so-called private monopolies will be very pleased indeed for the Commission to examine their activities. If hon. Gentlemen or the Government—

Mr. Daines

Was not the hon. Gentleman arguing earlier that any one who had to go to the Commission would become besmirched? How does that compare with his present argument?

Mr. Shepherd

I do not like to be hard on the hon. Gentleman and I am trying to be as charitable as I can, but really he has got it all wrong again. What I said earlier was that a firm would be besmirched if complaints by a third person were made to the Board of Trade and, because they were made by a specialised category of persons, would be published in the annual report. That was my complaint.

I say now that many so-called private monopolies will be anxious for the opportunity of having their cases investigated by this Commission. If the consciences of hon. Members opposite are as clear as those of the conductors of private monopolies, and if they have the same confidence in their form of organisation as those who conduct private monopolies, they ought to rejoice in this Amendment. If we have to go to a Division they ought to come to this side of the House in support of it.

Mr. Sparks

I should like to say a few words in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). It is important that we should have some regard for the motive of private industry and that of nationalised industry. The motive is important because, in the case of private industry, the responsibility is to a body of private persons who happen to be shareholders, whereas with nationalised enterprise the responsibility is a public one and the public interest is supreme.

Mr. Shepherd

Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between getting an expensive and inadequate article from a national corporation at a high price, and getting an inadequate and high-priced article from a private monopoly?

Mr. Sparks

With nationalised enterprises there are checks—

Mr. Lyttelton

We have to sign them all.

Mr. Sparks

—and the light of publicity very often shines on the activity of nationalised enterprises much more than on private enterprises.

It has been admitted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), in the very admirable book he wrote, that monopolies have a responsibility to a small section of the community, that is to the shareholders. Therefore, in view of the fact that the motive and origin of a private monopoly is to satisfy the interests of a private body of people, it obviously is an organisation which is ripe for this kind of inquiry. The position is totally different with a nationalised enterprise. Hon. Members opposite smile, but I have not heard them criticise the Post Office which has been admitted by them to be the finest business organisation in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Post Office can be run efficiently in the interests of the people of the country and without much criticism from Members opposite, it is a testimony for the exclusion of national enterprises from this kind of inquiry.

My right hon. Friend is correct therefore in insisting that nationalised enterprises operating in the interests of the community, should definitely be excluded from the purview of this Bill, but not monopolies responsible to no one but a group of private shareholders whose interests very often conflict with the national interests. It is those sort of monopolies upon which some kind of light should be thrown, and it is for that reason that they should be subject to the closest inquiry by the Commission.

Mr. Spearman (Scarborough and Whitby)

I think that the support of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for the Post Office might be somewhat diminished if he went to the United States or to Canada and tried their telephone services which are an extraordinary contrast in efficiency, or if he went as far as Hull and tried the telephone service there, which costs a good deal less and is a great deal more efficient.

Mr. Sparks

The hon. Member is misinformed. I did not talk about the telegraph services but the Post Office.

Mr. Spearman

I thought the hon. Member knew that the Post Office in this country owns and manages the telephone services except in the case of the City of Hull. If he does not know that. I am now telling him it is so.

I strongly support what has been admirably said from this side of the House. It seems to me that the point of this Bill is not only to protect the consumers, but to make clear to the consumer that he is being protected. How can the ordinary person be confident of that if a considerable proportion of the industry of the country, because, unfortunately, it has been nationalised, is immune? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the reasons, because I do not think that we ever had any reason shown during the Committee stage why nationalise industries are to be immune. Is he going to say that because there are no profits to be distributed, there will be no pressure or desire on the part of managers to get protection by unsuitable methods? I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that although there will be no profits, there will be losses and pressure to put up wages, and wages take a very large share in profits, and quite rightly so. Therefore, I suggest there will be great inducements for managers of nationalised industries to protect themselves in any way they can at the expense of the consumer in order to hide losses which might otherwise occur.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the extent to which consumers are being exploited at the present time under the system of Government controls which now exist? I can tell him of cases where the Government controls are acting in such a way as to enable inefficient industrialists—and in any branch of life there are some who are inefficient—to sell goods at prices vastly higher than they ought to be, and where efficiency is not the real test of the matter. I can tell him of companies that before the war were making little or no profit, which are now making large profits under the present system of Government controls. That is surely the way in which, under nationalisation, if these industries are immune, they may exploit the consumer. I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to give way he will give a clear reason why there is to be this immunity.

Mr. Belcher

It had not been my intention to go over all the arguments which were put forward during the Committee stage about this part of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has put me in the position of having to do so because he has asked the direct question why we have kept nationalised industries outside the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in introducing this Amendment referred to the co-operation which the Government experienced during the course of this Measure, and hoped that in view of that co-operation, which has been acknowledged by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, we would see our way to accept this proposal. The situation is now exactly the same as it was during the Committee stage, and I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. I find the wording of the Amendment somewhat disingenuous. I say that because of the part which begins: that is to say, to the question whether conditions to which this Act applies in fact prevail and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, and to the things which are done by the parties as a result or for the purpose of preserving those conditions. Obviously, in the case of the Coal Board there can be no question of those conditions not existing. The Coal Board is obviously a monopoly in the production of coal. There is, of course, a restraint laid on the Coal Board insofar as any other activity from the getting or distribution of coal is concerned. If they entered into the manufacture of coal-getting machinery and made some arrangement with manufacturers of coal-getting machinery, they would be as liable as any other organisation to inquiry by the Commission. It is a fact, which has been reiterated here today, that Parliament has laid down the conditions under which boards like the Coal Board should operate. It is a fact that organisations like the Coal Board—and this applies with equal force to various agricultural instruments set up under the marketing Acts—are subject to Ministerial direction, and that, although there is some disagreement about the degree to which Ministers can be subjected to questioning in regard to the operation of nationalised industries, Parliament still retains the right to criticise them on the Floor of the House, and maybe in some cases to compel the Minister to direct a particular nationalised industry to do something which Parliament wishes to be done.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Turban

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to be inaccurate, but I think he ought to reconsider what he has said. Actually the commissions under the various Marketing Acts and other Acts like the British Sugar Industry Act, 1936, are not subject to direction by a Minister but are independent commissions. I think it is important that it should not go on record that they are subject to direction.

Mr. Belcher

I agree. I did not make it plain—perhaps I should have done—that the question of Ministerial direction is different in the case of a nationalised industry like coal, from the sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He and the House might like to know that we have been in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, and I am advised that these various Marketing Acts are at present being scrutinised with a view to seeing whether something needs to be done to safeguard the national interest to an extent greater than it is being safeguarded at present. However, we have these nationalised undertakings which have been set up by Parliament, the conditions of whose operation are laid down by Parliament and which from time to time, as Parliament may feel necessary to urge the Minister, or as the Minister may feel urged, are subject to Ministerial direction. I contend that they are real safeguards.

In addition, there is this further point. To refer, for instance, the operations of the Coal Board under this Amendment to the Commission must involve a tremendous amount of work which would take a good deal of time and would occupy large numbers of staff as well as members of the Commission, with the result that there would be less staff to examine the private monopolies which in due course will be referred to them. On those grounds, I have the utmost confidence in asking the House to reject the Amendment and to accept the Clause as at present drafted.

Mr. Lyttelton

We have just listened to an agreeable piece of dialectic which, of course, has avoided all the questions involved in the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has tried to make out a case as if the Amendment gave the Commission powers over the National Coal Board or over this or that. It does not do anything of the kind. All it does is to give the Commission powers to ascertain the facts. Even the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that if Parliament has to discuss a nationalised industry it would be just as well—although, no doubt, it would be highly inconvenient to him—to discuss the nationalised industry on the basis of a number of ascertained facts.

Mr. Belcher

I do not like interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, because we have frequent Debates on these issues and we always get along together, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House, and to tell me in particular, exactly at what point in my speech I said anything about the Commission having any power over the National Coal Board.

Mr. Lyttelton

I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's argument to be this: that since the National Coal Board was responsible to a Minister and to this House, we could not have a commission

which would interfere with that responsibility. This Amendment does nothing of the kind. It is only proposed in order to ascertain the facts. I, like everybody else on this side of the House, appreciate what a very strong rearguard action will be put up by hon. Members opposite to prevent the facts about a nationalised industry being disclosed if that can possibly be done. In this matter they are, no doubt, solidly behind the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), whose mixture of ingenuousness and inaccuracy is so disconcerting, said that private monopolies were only responsible to a body of shareholders. He did not appear to consider that they were also responsible to a body of consumers and nearly always conducted their business accordingly.

Mr. Sparks

I did not say that.

Mr. Lyttelton

We have sought a compromise, and it gets over all the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary has been raising. It only allows an independent Commission set up under this Bill to inquire into the facts of nationalised industries. It does not in any way interfere with the chain of responsibility, which is frequently denied by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, between the Minister and these various Boards. For that reason I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this matter.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 75.

Division No. 247.] AYES. [8.5 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Bing, G. H. C. Champion, A. J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Binns, J. Chetwynd, G. R.
Alpass, J. H. Blackburn, A. R. Cobb, F. A.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Blenkinsop, A. Cocks, F. S.
Attewell, H. C. Blyton, W. R. Collins, V. J.
Austin, H. Lewis Bottomley, A. G. Colman, Miss G. M.
Awbery, S. S. Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Cook, T. F.
Ayles, W. H. Bowen, R. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Corlett, Dr. J.
Bacon, Miss A. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Cove, W. G.
Baird, J. Bramall, E. A. Crawley, A.
Balfour, A. Brook, D. (Halifax) Daggar, G.
Barstow, P. G. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Daines, P.
Barton, C. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Battley, J. R. Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Bechervaise, A. E. Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Belcher, J. W. Burden, T. W. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Benson, G. Burke, W. A. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Berry, H. Callaghan, James Deer, G.
Beswick, F. Carmichael, James de Freitas, Geoffrey
Diamond, J. Logan, D. G. Segal, Dr. S.
Dumpleton, C. W. Longden, F. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Durbin, E. F. M. McAdam, W. Sharp, Granville
Dye, S. McAllister, G. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McEntee, V. La T. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McGhee, H. G. Shurmer, P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) McGovern, J. Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Evans, John (Ogmore) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Simmons, C. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Skeffington, A. M.
Ewart, R. McKinlay, A. S. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Fairhurst, F. Maclean, N. (Govan) Skinnard, F. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McLeavy, F. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Follick, M. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Forman, J. C. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Snow, J. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mainwaring, W. H. Solley, L. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Sorensen, R. W.
Gilzean, A. Mann, Mrs. J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Sparks, J. A.
Grenfell, D. R. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Steele, T.
Grey, C. F. Marquand, H. A. Stubbs, A. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Sylvester, G. O.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Mayhew, C. P. Symonds, A. L.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Mellish, R. J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Gunter, R. J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Guy, W. H. Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Monslow, W. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Hale, Leslie Moody, A. S. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Morgan, Dr. H. B. Thurtle, Ernest
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Tiffany, S.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Timmons, J.
Hardy, E. A. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Titterington, M. F.
Harrison, J. Mort, D. L. Tolley, L.
Haworth, J. Moyle, A. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Murray J. D. Turner-Samuels, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nally, W. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Naylor, T. E. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Hicks, G. Neal, H. (Clay Cross) Viant, S. P.
Hobson, C. R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Wadsworth, G.
Holman, P. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Walker, G. H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Noel-Buxton, Lady Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hoy, J. Oldfield, W. H. Warbey, W. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Oliver, G. H. Watkins, T. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Weitzman, D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Palmer, A. M. F. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Pargiter, G. A. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) West, D. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Janner, B. Pearson, A. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Peart, T. F. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Perrins, W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jenkins, R. H. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Wigg, George
Johnston, Douglas Popplewell, E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Porter, E. (Warrington) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Porter, G. (Leeds) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Price, M. Philips Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Proctor, W. T. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Keenan, W. Pryde, D. J. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Kendall, W. D. Pursey, Comdr. H. Willis, E.
Kenyon, C. Randall, H. E. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Ranger, J. Wise, Major F. J.
Kinley, J. Rees-Williams, D. R. Woods, G. S.
Kirby, B. V. Rhodes, H. Wyatt, W.
Lang, G. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Yates, V. F.
Lee, F. (Hulme) Robens, A. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Leslie, J. R. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Royle, C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lindgren, G. S. Sargood, R. Mr. Collindridge and
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Scollan, T. Mr. R. Adams.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Amory, D. Heathcoat Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Haughton, S. G.
Astor, Hon. M. Digby, S. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Baldwin, A. E. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Barlow, Sir J. Drayson, G. B. Hogg, Hon. Q.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Drewe, C. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Bennett, Sir P. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Fraser H. C. P. (Stone) Jennings, R.
Bower, N. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lambert, Hon. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Gammans, L. D. Langford-Holt, J.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Grimston, R. V. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Raikes, H. V. Sutcliffe, H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Ramsay, Maj. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Robinson, Roland Turton, R. H.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Ropner, Col. L. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Sanderson, Sir F. Walker-Smith, D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Savory, Prof. D. L. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Marsden, Capt. A. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B. Snadden, W. M. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Nutting, Anthony Spearman, A. C. M. York, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Pete, Brig. C. H. M. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Pickthorn, K. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Studholme, H. G. Major Conant and
Brigadier Mackeson.
The Chairman

I am sorry that I cannot call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd)—in page 2, line 35, leave out from "enactment," to end of Subsection—because lines 33 to 36 now stand part of the Clause.

Amendment made: In line 1, leave out "any goods," and insert "goods of any description."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.