HC Deb 10 December 1952 vol 509 cc549-613
Mr. Alfred Barnes (East Ham, South)

I beg to move, in page 22, line 11, to leave out subsection (1).

This subsection repeals Sections 63 and 64 of the 1947 Act, which provide for the machinery to establish area road passenger schemes. I do not think that the repeal of these two Clauses should pass without some comment, although I recognise that in view of the operation of the Guillotine one must attempt to ration the available time. Further, I do not expect for a moment that anything that I say will influence the Minister to go back upon his decision. But those are very important sections of the Act, not for what they have actually accomplished but because of the purpose which they represent in relation to the larger problem of transport re-organisation.

It should be placed on record in the debates on this Bill exactly what was the purpose of those area schemes. In the first place, the principle of the area schemes was permissive. There was no principle of compulsion. I should like to have the attention of the Government Front Bench not, as I have indicated, because I assume that I can convince them, but because it would be probably to their interest and education to listen to this point of view from a convinced Socialist.

As I said, the principle was permissive. Neither the Minister nor the Commission could impose an area scheme on a locality. I recognise the temptation, which politicians always have to resist, to try and obtain quick results for any policy by applying the principle of compulsion. I see that very clearly in this Bill, because the Government are applying the principle of compulsion in reverse and are trying to force the pattern of transport back to a condition that had become obsolete even before the war.

The principle and purpose of the area schemes were based upon a very long experience which I myself had had in the development of London transport, the experience of transport in London between the wars and the circumstances which, in the first place, compelled the Labour Government of 1931 to frame the Act, now known as the London Passenger Transport Board Act. The Conservative Government in 1933 completed that Act and, by the principle of compulsion, introduced the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

May I interrupt my right hon. Friend, who was a Minister and holds a very influential position? Do I understand him to say that other areas should not use compulsion in the way that it has been used in London?

Mr. Barnes

No, I did not say that. If my hon. Friend will wait he will discover the thread of my argument.

I am pointing out that, faced with certain transport circumstances in the Metropolis—and I recognise that the Metropolis represents a different problem from that existing elsewhere—the Labour Government in 1931 and the Conservative Government in 1933 applied the principle of compulsion. They compelled the London General Omnibus Company, the underground railway and all the municipal tramway systems to come together and form what was known as the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Smith

And a good thing, too.

Mr. Barnes

I mention this to point out that when the capital of private enterprise was involved—and the London General Omnibus Company had the greater part of the capital—the Conservative Government of that period did not hesitate to apply the principle of compulsion. It was on the experience that resulted in that co-ordination of London transport that I framed the area schemes. The area schemes machinery of the 1947 Transport Act does not apply the principle of compulsion.

7.45 p.m.

I ask hon. Members to reflect for a moment on some of these problems, because they clearly indicate that when he is handling transport problems the Minister should give deep thought to the variety of the problems in different parts of the country. We have many large municipal authorities in Great Britain who are, naturally, proud of their own local transport service. The needs of the locality, the point of view of the people, their experiences and the differences in their local circumstances prove the case that in transport it is local opinion that should determine matters and not central opinion in London and Whitehall.

Mr. Smith

I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene again. This is where my earlier question comes in. In the case of electricity, gas and coal it was the national viewpoint that mattered. Is not that principle applicable also to transport?

Mr. Barnes

Not always. That is the point which I want to emphasise and to bring out in the discussion on the area schemes. In my view, it was desirable that local opinion should largely determine the shape of local transport services. The local opinion of those who use transport in travelling to work, following recreational activities, shopping, visiting, and so on, is very important. However that may be, the point that I am trying to emphasise is that the formation of these area schemes is permissive in character, and I see no ground at all for the Government repealing these facilities just for the sake of doing so.

In the area schemes safeguards were introduced. I have already pointed out that neither the Minister nor the Commission could impose their will on a locality. They had to bring together all the local authorities and all those engaged in transport operations and discuss with them the formation of an area scheme. Secondly, even when that stage was completed the majority opinion in the area could not at that stage impose its decision or its desire on the minority.

The whole of the facts—the case for the scheme and the objections of any local authority or minority view—had to go to the Minister. The Minister's responsibility was to achieve the maximum amount of agreement. Finally, we had the safeguard that if the matter could not be ultimately resolved by local agreement, then in submission to Parliament it had to pass through the special Parliamentary procedure, and again the minority could have an opportunity of presenting their views.

I admit that no area scheme has been formed as a result of that procedure. It is quite understandable why that was the case. The British Electric Traction Company, which was bitterly opposed to the whole principle of the Transport Act, led the opposition to the first scheme proposed in the North-Eastern area. But I submit that that is no case for the Government repealing these two Sections, because in matters of this description if it is proposed to rest on the question of local consent one should give time for local opinion to begin to understand the type of reorganisation that is involved.

I want to put a direct question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it wise, merely for the sake of removing these two Sections, to scrap this machinery? Surely this discloses another motive behind the decision of the Government. They could rest quite easily on the fact that no area schemes have so far resulted. As a matter of fact, I submit that there is another deeper and, if I may use the word, a more cunning motive behind the proposal to repeal these Sections than the mere fact that no area scheme has resulted so far. I cannot overlook the fact that in the three or four years during which the British Transport Commission has been in existence it has been able to purchase practically the major proportion of the road passenger services in this country.

Mr. G. Wilson

How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that fact? Would he not agree that the British Transport Commission only control one in five of the buses in the country areas?

Mr. Barnes

No, certainly I do not. If we take away the local authorities' transport services and give them to the private road passenger services, leaving out the contract carriages—the public schedule services—the British Transport Commission, by voluntary purchase, acquired something like 70 per cent. of the road passenger schedule service vehicles.

The purpose of the Transport Act eventually was that as these area schemes developed, these private road passenger services which the Transport Commission had acquired in different parts of the country would be dovetailed into any area schemes that emerged. It is in this sense that we can see the purpose of the Government in repealing these two Sections. As I have indicated, if the Sections resulted in no area schemes, the Government would have no case to do away with them, but it is because they know that later, when public opinion develops, the Commission's road passenger services can represent a very large and effective nucleus when they are dovetailed into these area schemes.

I want to comment on the area schemes for the purpose of bringing out the point that I think there is another motive in the repeal of these Sections, and that is so that eventually there will be no opportunity for local public opinion to move along the same lines as has prevailed in London. The Transport Commission's services were kept on a company basis—I would emphasise that point—and although they took over Tillings, S.M.T., East Anglian and bodies of that kind, they kept them on an existing company basis until they could be dovetailed into these area schemes.

The Government's intention is to force the Transport Commission to hand the companies back to private operation, and then when we link this fact to the repeal of these two Sections it discloses a very undesirable state of affairs. I am confident that before very long the Government and hon. Members opposite will regret what they are doing in this direction. It is for that reason that I have moved the deletion of this subsection.

Mr. Braithwaite

I intervene at this stage because I gather that hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious not to spend overlong on this Amendment but wish to reach others on the Order Paper to which they attach more importance. In his very fair presentation of the circumstances which surround the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear— and it is very true—that here is a definite collision between the two sides of the Committee—I gather more of a head-on collision with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) than with the right hon. Gentleman, but a collision none the less.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The hon. Gentleman can emphasise that as much as he likes.

Mr. Braithwaite

I was not making a point of it. I was merely stating the fact. The hon. Gentleman always states his opinion with great frankness. I am replying at the moment to the right hon. Gentleman who has the melancholy experience of a very proud parent watching the demise of one of his favourite offspring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Murder."] It does not assist our proceedings or avoid the Guillotine to have these interruptions, good-tempered as they may be.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman asks for them.

Mr. Braithwaite

The right hon. Gentleman in his Act of 1947, of course, included these Sections 63 and 64. Their objectives were perfectly clear— to enable the Commission to submit to the Minister schemes for providing adequate, suitable and efficient services of passenger transport in the various areas. The local authorities were to be consulted, as he has indicated. The providers of passenger services would also be taken into consultation. The procedure then provided for a draft order which could be followed by a public inquiry if objections were lodged, and all the familiar machinery which this House so frequently sets up when dealing with matters of this kind.

8.0 p.m.

Section 64 did lay down certain definite instructions as to the kind of things which would go into these schemes; these include the setting up of authorities—and there was nothing to debar the Commission from being one of them—in these areas to provide passenger transport services and to administer such schemes, and the transfer to such authorities of the passenger transport undertakings within their area. There was also to be a pooling of receipts from passenger services, road or rail, and a definite restriction on services operating otherwise than under the scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) was extremely frank when he disclosed—and here we come to the clear-cut difference between us—that it has been evident for some time that such schemes have very little chance to surmount the obstacles of the procedure of the 1947 Act, owing to strong opposition in the areas where they have been proposed.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of local resistance and patriotism, and of how local authorities were disinclined to divest themselves of their transport services, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the resistance has come—and it is not without significance—largely from the north-east part of the country, where many of the local authorities have large majorities favouring the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only one scheme has been formally submitted, for the northern area. It was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman during his period of office, in June, 1950. He made his observations thereupon, sent it back, and it was re-submitted in June, 1951, some three months before he left office. No further progress has been made since. I think that is a factual statement of the situation.

The right hon. Gentleman postulated the question whether the Government thought it wise to make this change. Yes—we think it is wise, otherwise we shoulds not be making it. It is in view of these circumstances that we say, in all deference and good temper, that this scheme and machinery has in fact broken down.

Mr. Popplewell

Try the North-East again now.

Mr. Braithwaite

It is always easy to say that one should try again now, but the hon. Member would be the last to deny that that is in fact the history of the matter to date—and it is the history of the matter upon which the evidence rests. It is always easy to say that at any given moment opinion will change. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of throwing a challenge across the House from time to time, but it was in view of the circumstances and, even more, in conformity with our general policy—which is not to enlarge the part played by the British Transport Commission in the provision of road passenger services, and this is where the head-on collision comes between us—that the Government announced in the White Paper of May last that they intended to repeal Sections 63 and 64.

To save the time of the Committee I would just add that we remain of that opinion now. That is why this subsection is inserted in the Bill, and that is why I ask the Committee to uphold us in retaining it.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

I would not have intervened at this juncture but for the complete failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport.

We are faced with this difficulty now because when he was in office he was too cautious, too generous and too patient in his handling of the passenger transport side of the industry, and the provision he made for protracted Parliamentary procedure merely gave opportunities to companies like B.E.T. to engage in active propaganda to destroy any possibility of an integrated scheme being developed. In fact, they used every opportunity to make it impossible for that Act fairly and properly to be implemented.

The Committee have to face the fact that we have to have monopoly of one kind or another. It is either a private monopoly or a public monopoly. If I had to make the choice I should unhesitatingly choose the public monopoly. What is happening at the moment? The big fish are swallowing the little fish. B.E.T. and kindred people are touring the country acquiring every transport undertaking they can possibly lay their hands upon and forming one of the greatest monopolies in passenger transport that this country has ever known.

Now we are asked to help the Government to develop this private monopoly. One would not worry so much if it were for the benefit of the public, but what is happening? The public are being held to ransom so far as fares, services and stages are concerned, and the greater grip these people have on transport the worse it will be for the travelling public. It is not difficult to foresee that if the Government have their way in this particular matter not many months will elapse before this enterprise of the B.T.C., directing about 70 per cent. of passenger transport, will be handed over to speculators.

Transport is a public service. It is almost as essential as coal and light, and if men are going to earn a decent living at not too high a cost they should be able to get transport at a reasonable figure. But instead of that we find that transport is becoming more expensive day by day and a major part of that expense is in order to provide speculators with profit.

Why should something that is absolutely essential to the life-blood of industry and the prosperity of our people be left to the field of private enterprise? Why should people pay high and ever increasing fares in order to provide dividends for investors? This is a public service that should be in the hands of the public and I hope and trust that when the Labour Party gets into power again they will not be so gentle and cautious in handling this passenger transport problem because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the benefit of an integrated system run on the cheapest possible basis would soon be seen. That is what we have been aiming at for a number of years.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to the point which was made by my right hon. Friend? What is the motive behind this particular suggestion? What do they hope to achieve by handing over passenger transport to speculators again? Many people are under the erroneous impression that a Government should slavishly follow public opinion, but there are occasions when we should accept our own responsibilities as a legislature and take certain steps to form public opinion and, in due time, be judged by the results. If we did it in our own way in this particular matter we should be quite content to accept the judgment of the British public.

The opposition to the proposals of my right hon. Friend were engineered by people with financial interest in transport, who spent thousands of pounds on advertisements and on organising campaigns, and now they are able to rub their hands in anticipatory glee. They are just waiting for this Bill to have its Third Reading; just waiting for their friends on the opposite side of the House to redeem their promises; just waiting for a Tory Government to say, "The field is yours. Never mind the public interest; never mind public enterprise; you run your buses as you have done up to now and make all the profit you possibly can, and the public will pay because they have to use transport from day to day." It is a shocking Measure, and I hope the Government will think twice about it.

Mr. Powell

I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite are anxious to delete the first subsection of this Clause, because it marks the failure not merely of a tentative experiment—as the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) tried to represent it—but of the principle underlying the Transport Act of 1947.

No argument can be adduced in favour of the integration of freight transport by public ownership which is not equally applicable to the integration of passenger transport by public ownership; and in so far as the party opposite, when they had all the opportunities, first refrained from taking the appropriate steps to create a State monopoly in passenger transport and then found that even the tentative steps they had dared to take were failures, the principle of integration by public ownership as such became discredited.

I have every sympathy for the point of view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), who said that the parts of the 1947 Act which related to passenger transport ought to have been compulsory, as were the parts relating to freight transport. Of course they should have been, on the theories on which hon. Members opposite were working. If they believed that they could secure the best service to the public in freight transport only by a State monopoly they should have admitted that they could obtain those same benefits in passenger transport only by an equally complete State monopoly.

But they did not dare to do that, and what little they did dare to do failed under their hands. There has been an attempt throughout this debate to represent the opposition to these freight schemes as having come from capital interests or from speculators. It was not always so, according to the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Transport who, in a franker moment a year ago, said that so far many local authorities have resisted this process, I think unwisely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July. 1951; Vol. 491, c. 1307.] The main opposition to these area schemes has not in fact come from private companies or from speculators; it has come from local authorities and ratepayers up and down the country, at the mere threat of such a thing being done.

Mr. P. Morris

The opposition is coming from the local Labour Parties or municipalities who owned their transport system and still believe in the publicly-owned system. They do not want to have it handed back to private enterprise.

Mr. Powell

I appreciate that, but the fact remains that these area schemes broke down primarily because the local authorities, who were operating their own transport, would have none of it. I hope note will be taken by local authorities throughout the country of the threats which have been uttered in this debate, that if the party opposite get the chance they will nationalise the transport assets of local authorities. That has been stated, and I hope the implications of it will be noted by those whom it concerns.

The hon. Member for Swansea, West, and many other hon. Members opposite, are constantly falling into a very simple fallacy. They say that this or that industry—passenger transport in this case—is by its nature a semi-monopoly, that it is hard to conduct a business of this sort unless the various enterprises concerned have some kind of semi-monopoly, that it is impossible in a field like this to achieve the classical economist's perfectly free competition. Then they immediately jump to the conclusion that therefore we must create a complete State monopoly.

But there is all the difference in the world between, for example, a public service provided by a local authority, which only affords one or two forms of road passenger service and, incidentally, is responsible to its own ratepayers, and a centralised State monopoly, into the hands of which all the alternative forms of passenger transport have been put. Socialism and Socialists constantly ignore the difference between every kind of partial and semi-monopoly and the complete State monopoly for which they stand.

It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if these area schemes have failed, as they have, and if there were no prospect of going on with these Sections of the 1947 Act, then why trouble to repeal them? Is there not some sinister motive behind their appeal? There is no sinister motive, but the very obvious motive that the repeal of these Sections is consistent with the principle underlying this Bill. This is that integration—that is, the best utilisation of the available resources in the public interest—is best brought about not by a State monopoly but by competition, where the various resources are able to offer their services to the public at charges which generally reflect the economic cost of providing the service. That is as true of passenger transport as it is of freight transport.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Popplewell

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he hopes to get any competition in road passenger transport in view of the developments which have already taken place, and particularly those which took place in pre-war years when small companies were absorbed by a larger one, a process which has gone on ever since?

Mr. Powell

Apart from the fundamental difference between a semi-monopoly and a complete monopoly, the hon. Member will be aware that this Bill revolutionises the position of the railways in regard to charges, not only freight charges but passenger charges as well. Therefore, the ground is cleared for genuine, economic competition between road transport and rail transport.

In the second place, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West was saying, under this Bill it will be possible, subject to the licensing authority, for anyone to seek to give a better service to the public. The fact that groupings may take place—groupings rise and fall—is no prejudice to the underlying principle that in this Bill whoever can provide a better service in road passenger transport for the public will have the opportunity to do so within the licensing system. So the repeal of these Sections is neither accidental nor incidental. It is fundamental to the purpose of the Bill and consistent with the principle which underlies it.

Mr. McLeavy

The decision to repeal the Sections for the provision of area schemes is a retrograde step, as I know from personal experience of different areas in passenger transport. I do not know if hon. Members realise that the abolition of area schemes would not eliminate a number of passenger vehicles from the road and would increase the danger on the roads themselves. Apart from that, area schemes ensure that both the agricultural and the thickly populated areas of the country are properly served with adequate services.

Those of us who have had experience with road passenger transport know how difficult it is to get an undertaking to run an unprofitable service in the country areas and to balance it against the more remunerative routes. I remember one such case, and if the Minister cares to examine the position he will find hundreds and hundreds of cases throughout the country where such a refusal stands as a monument to the stupidity of so-called private enterprise in the field of road passenger transport.

I will give the Minister one instance, which happened within my personal knowledge. A hospital was built in the country by a county authority, and it was served only by an infrequent service of a private omnibus undertaking. A corporation bus service came within a mile of the hospital, and application was made to the Traffic Commission to permit the corporation to extend their service to the hospital at all times of the day, to provide facilities for urgent cases, relatives of people on the danger list, and accident cases, and for the nursing, medical and other staffs. Those are important considerations in maintaining staff in country hospitals.

I am trying to present the picture to the Minister as we found it. The Traffic Commission said, "On the one hand, we cannot allow you to extend on to the preserves of the private bus company. On the other hand, if you care to enter into an arrangement with the company whereby they will get some corresponding advantage, we will rubber stamp the agreement that you arrive at." For nearly two years, people were prevented from getting adequate facilities respecting that hospital. Patients going for outdoor treatment found themselves in transport difficulties and were held up, because private profit was more sacred than the rights of the common people.

That illustrates the history of the passenger transport system of this country, and is why I have always argued that transport facilities should be co-ordinated to get not only a reduction of the number of vehicles on the road but the type of service which I have described as being desirable. By withdrawing the Sections relating to A and B licences, the Minister is destroying any hope for the future of people getting together to provide the type of service that the people want and are entitled to receive.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I want to speak very strongly against the proposal set out in this subsection to repeal certain parts of the 1947 Act. I never forget when the present Prime Minister visited a number of industrial centres during the war and came back to the House of Commons. I remember the mood in which he spoke when he paid a great tribute to the large number of men and women who were standing in cold, wet, snowy and foggy weather, queueing up without shelters, waiting to travel to their employment. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who was then Home Secretary, and his Parliamentary Secretary, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, telling similar stories.

The same conditions exist today. I have them clearly in mind. Men and women are standing now, in fog, rain, and snow, waiting to go on the night shift. It is scandalous that this proposal is being made, and I am annoyed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, whom I respect because of his record, that compulsory powers were not taken at the time he was in office. I felt it would be wrong for me to sit here knowing the conditions, and not to make a few observations on behalf of those people.

Within 25 miles of where I live, mountains of wealth have been produced for generations, yet more and more we see less of that wealth spent upon providing decent conditions for the people who produce it. In Lancashire and North Staffordshire, and particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, travel facilities for the work-people are simply disgraceful. Now it is proposed in the Bill to repeal even the suggestions made to the localities in the Act of Parliament of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. What London did 30 years ago we should be pleased to do now. Fundamentally, the proposal in the is a proposal to support the British Electric Traction Company. It means that slowly but surely a monopoly will be created in road passenger transport in all the localities of the country.

Take the City of Stoke-on-Trent, where a great contribution to the export trade is being produced. There are no decent traffic shelters for people when they are queuing up for the mines or the potteries. There is great indignation in that locality because of the lack of shelter facilities. The city council have no control over the local services. We talk about democracy; there is no democracy about it, because the local authority cannot make a contribution to the management of the local privately-owned concerns.

Therefore, on behalf of the teeming millions of people that the south in particular have to thank for saving this country, and on behalf of people in North Staffordshire particularly, I make a protest against any proposal for worsening the traffic facilities of the workpeople in the industrial areas. It is time we did protest against it. Next time we shall have learnt a lesson. I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Let him rub it in and underline it as much as he can. It will just suit us. Depend upon it, it is only a matter of time before we shall get political power again, and when we get it we shall have learned the mistakes we have made.

Amendment negatived.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Morris

I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, to leave out "month," and to insert "year."

I think it might assist the Committee if we considered this Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 30, in similar terms, together. In doing so, I will try to be unusually brief.

The Minister has acknowledged on several occasions that the provisions of this Bill have been made against the advice of the B.T.C., but I know that he hopes, at a later stage, to say that he is doing some things with their blessing. In submitting these two Amendments, I am asking the Minister to facilitate the administrative work because one month is totally inadequate. If he will accept the Amendments or tell us in what way he can help, he will earn the gratitude of all engaged in transport.

Mr. Braithwaite

These two Amendments provide for a period of 12 months within which the Commission must lodge applications for road service licences, to cover the activities provided by them at the passing of the Bill, so that they can continue operations until such applications have been determined. Let me say at once, that this seems to us to be an unnecessary extension of time, but I am able to go some part of the way with the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), to see if we can find a common agreement on this matter.

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the machinery under which these applications have to be made to cover the situation so that the services can continue. Many of the companies affected, as he knows, remain legal entities and their services will continue to be subject to the licensing system. These have been left to operate separately, in spite of the shareholding control now held by the Commission. The services operating outside the London special area, as hon. Members know, is treated as an exceptional case under powers delegated by the Commission, are limited to those provided by the London Transport Executive on the fringe of the London special area and a few that are operated by the Railway Executive in conjunction with certain municipalities in Yorkshire, notably the Corporation of the City of Sheffield.

All that the Commission would need to do to protect their position is to lodge applications within one month of this Bill reaching the Statute Book. All the necessary particulars for the drawing up of such applications will be available, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, West appreciates that their preparation can go forward during the later stages of the progress of this Bill through Parliament. Nevertheless, we realise that a good deal of clerical work is bound to be involved, so I am able to make this offer to the hon. Gentleman.

May I remind him of what took place when we were discussing the first Amendment today, when my right hon. Friend, with his usual desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite, made a concession which doubled the period from three months to six? I am going to do even better than my right hon. Friend. I propose to multiply the period by three, and to say to the hon. Gentleman that, if he cares to withdraw his Amendment and to put down another Amendment on the the Report stage, extending the period from one month to three, my right hon. Friend will add his name thereto, thus ensuring its being called and included in the Bill.

Mr. P. Morris

On the last occasion, the hon. Gentleman suggested that he ought not to give me a snap answer. He will not expect a snap answer from me, but I am quite willing to think about it and to see what happens on the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham)

I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out "ten," and to insert "seventy-five."

This Amendment goes together with the next Amendment, in line 16, to leave out from "miles," to "from," in line 17.

The Deputy-Chairman

It may be convenient to the Committee to take these two Amendments together.

Mr. Gibson

Thank you, Mr. Hopkin Morris.

These Amendments affect the position of the London Transport Executive. Before I say a word or two in favour of the proposals that we have to make, I should like to make it quite clear that my hon. and right hon. Friends refrained from moving the preceding Amendment only because of the time factor. It raised a similar issue, and had there been time we would certainly have moved it and had discussion on it, but like so many other things in this debate it was guillotined almost before it was born.

This proposal of ours affects a very large number of people in the London area, who have been enjoying services which never existed before the setting up of the London Transport Executive. I see no reason whatever for the wording of the Clause which the Government propose. It seems to me to have nothing at all to do with the main purpose of the Bill of de-nationalising long-distance road transport. The Clause limits the services which the London Transport Executive can give to the people of London to an area 10 miles outside the London Transport area, an area which, as far as I can see, is not defined in the Bill.

At present, people in London may make journeys conveniently and comparatively cheaply, many miles outside London. The London Transport Executive have built up a set of services which are of inestimable benefit to the people using them and in building them up they have provided facilities which very considerably assist local authorities in the London area in many of the problems which they have to handle as housing and town planning authorities.

To illustrate the improvement in travel facilities which London Transport have been able to develop, I should like to quote from the section of the Annual Report of the Transport Commission dealing with the London Transport Executive. Paragraph 162, on page 142, says: Mileage run on country bus services rose from 46.4 millions in 1950 to 47.3 millions in 1951, or by 2 per cent. An increase of about 300,000 miles was caused by the transfer of services in the Grays and Tilbury area from the Eastern National Omnibus Company Ltd. to the Executive on 30th September, 1951. That service could not be continued under the terms of this Bill as it is at the moment because it goes well beyond the 10-mile ring.

In paragraph 163 we find: Mileage run on Green Line coach services rose from 21.8 millions in 1950 to 22.3 millions in 1951, or by 2 per cent., as a consequence of the increase in the service on Route 723 to provide better facilities for the London County Council estate at Aveley and the working of additional journeys to duplicate peak-hour services on certain other coach routes.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the paragraph which his Amendment seeks to amend refers only to contract carriage, and not to the services of which he is now speaking.

Mr. Gibson

I am coming to that. The point I am making is that in the London area there has been a great extension by the Board of very valuable services to the people of London and one of those services has been the contract service. The restriction to a 10-mile limit around the London area cuts that out and makes impossible the provision of convenient and cheap coach services for organised parties to the coast. Why should that be done? I have been concerned with groups of people who have hired coaches from the London Transport Executive to take them as far as the coast, but that would end with this Measure.

So far as I can see the only reason for taking away that facility is a purely ideological one, that the Tory Party dislike public enterprise because in that field it competes very effectively with private enterprise. If the Government want competition in transport they better leave the present facilities which London Transport Executive is able to give and has built up over the last few years and let us have some really effective competition.

The fact is that when this Bill is passed the financial interests which have already been referred to in the debate today will be able to clamp down, as they were rapidly clamping down before the introduction of nationalisation. They will turn what, I admit, is a public monopoly, owned by the community with the aim of providing service to the community, into a private monopoly existing solely for the purpose of providing profits to private individuals. When they can no longer provide profits the services will cease.

In discussion of a previous Amendment, the Minister said he believed there was a public opinion in support of the proposals of the Bill. That cannot apply in London. In London we had a big majority win for the Labour and Socialist candidates in the last General Election. London is still a Socialist city and when the county council elections came we wiped out nearly all the Tory Party. If the Government think they are playing up to some public opinion by this Bill, so far as one-tenth of the community—in the London area—are concerned there is undoubtedly a very strong expression of opinion in favour of a publicly-owned monopoly service for passenger transport. I hope that the Minister will remember that in considering whether to accept the Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

At any rate, it is quite clear what the position is with the contract service. Incidentally, may I say how glad I am to see in this draft of the Bill a provision which makes it possible for the employees of the transport authorities to hire some of their own buses in order to take their children out for the day? That was not permitted in the earlier provisions, and the omission created a great deal of ill-feeling in the London area.

But why mess about with the remainder of the provisions? If many of the people of London want to hire buses from London Transport for services such as taking their clubs on outings and their Bands of Hope on outings, not only to the seaside but to places of historic interest around London, and are willing to pay for it, why not permit them to do so? If they prefer public services to private services, why not give them the choice?

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

I rise to support the Amendment. It seems to me that, if we accept the dictum laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and pleaded so eloquently by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—that in certain cases it is desirable that private enterprise should be given an opportunity to compete with public enterprise—here we have the exact corollary. There is nothing in this Amendment to prevent the ordinary contract carriages of private enterprise from operating. There is no question that London Transport are doing this work to the exclusion of anybody else who can do it better. The answer is that the Amendment will exclude those who do it worse, because the public will take advantage of the company which provides the best and safest service at a cost they want to pay.

London Transport's service is not always the cheapest service, but it may be preferred because of another factor. As a result of running these contract carriages, the London Transport Executive add a valuable sum to their total revenue, so that the service helps the general revenues of London Transport. It also means that the Executive are better able to make an overall use of their vehicles which, of course, are very much subject to peak and low periods of operation. If, by means of this service, the Executive can use their vehicles and labour to advantage and give a good public service, why does the Minister want to stop them from doing so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) waxed very eloquent about his party having succeeded in wiping the Tories out in London.

Mr. D. Jones

And in Bedford.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In Bedford we have four Conservative Members for the first time.

Mr. Sparks

And the last time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Member for Clapham suggests that it is not only the right of all people in the London area to do what they like in London but that this right is extended so that they can do what they like outside London. Here we are dealing not only with the question of contract carriages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, but also with a prohibition on the London Transport authority preventing them from going beyond a certain area outside London in contract carriage work. They are going into counties where we do not claim to have wiped the Socialist party out, for in some places, like Sussex, the Socialist Party have never existed.

As the Committee know, the 1947 Act gave the Transport Commission the power to run contract carriages anywhere. The Commission have not directly taken advantage of this power, although companies controlled by them have done so. Two years ago, as the Committee will remember, authority was given to the London Transport Executive to run contract carriage services 100 miles outside London. In our view this was too wide an extension, and in a moment I will, very briefly, give the reason why it is reasonable to limit this right to the London Passenger Transport area, the old area, and its immediate vicinity, with the addition, also of those staff outings to which the hon. Member for Clapham has referred.

I have received a number of letters from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on this matter and I thought I would put it right straight away in the Bill and not wait, as it might tactically have been wiser to do, and accept an Amendment moved by the hon. Member. The Bill as it is now drawn provides, broadly, the limitations of Section 15 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and subsection (4, a) of this Clause applies these limits.

There is nothing political in this at all. It is not a question of party politics or party ideology. I would say to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), whose interventions are always brief and to the point, that if it were possible to have fair competition in this field, then most certainly let us have it. But the London Transport Executive has an absolute monopoly in the whole London area. It is an immensely powerful body. It has absolutely—

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No, let me finish my sentence; I should hope to be equally amenable to the right hon. Gentleman.

From their basis of a full monopoly they are claiming the right—or there are some who are claiming it on their behalf—to go outside that area, and they are backed by the strength which 100 per cent. monopoly position in London gives them. In our view, that is not right. That is certainly not competition as we understand it. We consider we are right to limit this contract carriage right to the London area and its immediate vicinity, with these staff outings also included.

Mr. H. Morrison

I do not wish to prolong this discussion, as we are anxious to get on to the next point. But would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes that a private operator shall be limited in his radius in the same way, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No private operator can conceivably be in a 100 per cent. monopoly position in any one area. It is the strength which the London Transport Executive gets from such a monopoly that we think unfair in its competition with other people. I feel sure that millions of citizens of London, who are deeply concerned about transport proposals, would rather that all the efforts and all the wisdom of the London Transport Authority were turned to improving transport facilities in London itself, rather than to extending those facilities in fields of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan

If the Minister is so concerned with the strength which a monopoly position gives, may I ask whether he will propose similar restrictions on the British Electric Traction Company which, as he knows, is one of the biggest monopolies in the country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am prepared to come to that when we discuss the Clauses which we are waiting to discuss. And I will also deal with the very large holding of the Transport Commission in a large number of crucial companies like the B.E.T.—[Interruption.]—I am trying to answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman. There is no conceivable comparison between a private company which has no rail interests, or tube activities or anything of that kind, with the London Transport Executive, which has 100 per cent. monopoly in all form of transport in the whole London area.

Mr. D. Jones

The more the Minister seeks to deal with transport problems the more he reveals his complete ignorance of the operations of transport. He speaks of the London Transport Executive as a monopoly. What he does not appreciate is that so far as operating contract carriages is concerned, neither their tubes nor their service buses can be used. He must realise that these contract carriages are in the main—and particularly now, since the advent of the five-day week— used at week-ends. And to be able to use the vehicles for contract work, when they are not required for service work, seems to me to be making a much better use of the equipment provided than by using it in the way he seeks to do.

If there was sufficient time I could describe some of the difficulties which local authorities experience because of the prohibition imposed by a previous Conservative Act against taking part in contract carriage work.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Provincial bus companies controlled by the Commission have no such limitation because, in their cases, they do not operate from a full monopoly position in their own areas.

Mr. Jones

But, surely, the Minister appreciates that there is a vast difference. This equipment is used for five days a week to convey people to and from work; but the Minister said that it cannot be used on Saturday and Sunday on contract carriage work to take the same people in groups into the country. I have never heard of anything more stupid.

Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)

We are talking about carriages and equipment. Will the Minister consider this matter from the point of view of the people of London? Does he intend to deny the people of London the right to go just outside into the country? Will he give careful consideration to this matter before the Report stage? The position appears to be scandalous.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have been at pains, during the discussion on the previous Clause, to make it clear that in our view the people most concerned are the public users of transport in the areas affected. I think that it is fair to say that we wasted a good deal of time discussing that priority. It is our view that there will be no diminution whatever— probably the reverse—in the facilities available because of this quite proper limitation.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I wish to ask one question. Will the Minister, either now or on Report stage, provide figures showing the extent to which this discrimination against the London Transport Executive will increase their overhead charges and, in that way, contribute to the continued rise in fares with which the present Government are so closely associated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will certainly inquire of the London Transport Executive what in their estimate is the likely consequence on their finances. At the same time, I must point out that one of the purposes of this Bill is to break monopoly and to restore competition. We are concerned about the interests of the travelling public. There will be innumerable opportunities for private operators to satisfy the needs of the people over the wide area where these facilities will be required.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 24, line 1, to leave out subsection (5).

I must say that the more we see of the proceedings on this Bill the more shameful and preposterous this Guillotine procedure appears to be. We on the Opposition Front Bench have had to wrestle with our hon. Friends on the back benches who naturally want to speak on these matters. With great regret we have had to ask them not to speak. We must do that because we have to ration ourselves. Once the Guillotine is on, we have almost got to guillotine ourselves voluntarily so that the various aspects of this Bill may be considered by the Committee.

This is a vital Clause. It deals with the relationship between the Commission and road passenger transport. It is a long Clause which raises vital issues of principle. We started our discussion on it at 7.30 and we have had 1½ hours in which to debate these vital matters. We have another 1½ hours left in which to debate the rest of the Clause. I hope that the Minister is feeling a sense of shame that the Guillotine—[H0N. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no harm in hoping. It is a good Christian virtue to hope for virtue in other people, and even to hope for it in oneself.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also feeling a sense of shame in that it was on the Socialist Bill in 1947 that a Guillotine was first introduced on a transport Measure.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I do not think that this is in order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was moving an Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

In those circumstances, we will call it a day—I wish it was.

There are two Amendments, if I may refer to both of them now, which, between them, propose to omit subsections (5) and (6). Perhaps it would be useful, in the first instance, if I were to indicate what these subsections mean. If I am right in my understanding of them—and, no doubt, I can be put right if I am wrong—it is, first of all, provided absolutely, without any question of reserve powers for the Minister at all, that the Commission shall not have the power to acquire any undertaking, or part of any undertaking, the business of which wholly or mainly consists of the provision of road passenger transport services; that is to say, the Commission can, in no circumstances, acquire any passenger transport undertaking, or any part of any such undertaking.

Incidentally, I call attention to the fact that this is denying to the British Transport Commission, which, under the Bill, will be responsible, so far as one can tell, for the operation of the railways, or for supervision over the railway groups. It denies to the British Transport Commission the very powers which Parliament gave to the four private railway companies some years ago, and it really will not do for the Minister to say that the Government are not actuated by a principle of unfair discrimination against a public authority.

In this case, clearly, they are. The power was given to the private railway companies in the 1930s to own and operate road passenger services, and, indeed, road haulage and even air transport, and, to some extent, they did all of these things. Far from Parliament discriminating against these vast statutory companies that they should not do these things, Parliament deliberately conferred that power upon them, and it was not a Socialist Parliament that did it. It was a Parliament with a Conservative majority in it, or in which Conservatives were the leading party. That is the first provision—that the Commission cannot buy any passenger transport undertaking or any part of a passenger transport undertaking, in any circumstances.

Secondly, the Commission is prohibited, unless the Minister consents, from acquiring any securities if the acquisition of those securities would put them in the position, directly or indirectly, of controlling a passenger transport undertaking. This, again, is denying to the Commission what the railway companies were enabled to do.

If we take—I think I am right— the Southdown Motor Services, I believe that the Southern Railway acquired shares in that undertaking which have now passed to the British Transport Commission. They were able freely to do it, either with a majority or a minority holding. In this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) tells me that it was 32 per cent., and that was freely done—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

May I put the right hon. Gentleman right? I am advised that it is the Southdown Motor Services, which have taken about 244,000, and the B.T.C. 244,000. As is so often the case when sharp remarks are make about the B.E.T., hon. Members fail to say that, in the companies they are criticising, B.T.C. have an equal holding.

Mr. Morrison

Anyway, the point is not really material; it is a point of detail. My hon. Friend points out to me that page 42 of the Financial and Statistical Accounts for 1951 bears out what I said.

However, on the point of principle, it really does not matter whether it is 32 per cent., 50 per cent., or whatever it may be. But the fact is that the railway companies were in the position to acquire securities by payment to somebody or in the open market. In some cases they acquired sufficient securities to get a majority holding. At any rate, as far as I recall, there was no legal bar to their doing so.

So we get to this second provision whereby the Transport Commission is prohibited from acquiring securities in an undertaking if by so doing it would directly or indirectly give them control. So these are two negative provisions, the first one absolute, the second one conditional, on the Minister waiving the provisions of paragraph (b). Also, presumably, they could acquire securities without the Minister's permission—he will correct me if I am wrong—providing that it did not give them direct or indirect control of the undertaking. That might be useful, or it might not.

Subsection (6) provides: Where—

  1. (a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying 576 on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and
  2. (b) as a result of disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control that body corporate, whether directly or indirectly, then, without prejudice to any other power … the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct the Commission to dispose of those securities at such time and in such manner as may be specified. …"

This is a devastating power. What apparently has happened is that the British Transport Commission have inherited securities or controlling powers in certain passenger undertakings, or have, apparently, bought them by agreement. That has been done in the ordinary way of business. It is the kind of thing that the railway companies had the power to do under an Act of Parliament granted to them by a Conservative Government. Now the Minister is going to take powers whereby he, with the consent of the Treasury, can say to them, "You have got to get rid of these undertakings or securities; you have got to dispose of them."

It may well be that they have acquired those securities or undertakings on pretty heavy terms, and some of the terms were pretty heavy, because some of the omnibus companies which were operating under private enterprise, and sometimes under semi-monopolistic conditions, had acquired such profits or good will one way or the other that the amount of compensation paid for good will was considerable. That was so in the case of Tillings, and in the case of other acquisitions of the British Transport Commission.

Under the provisions of this subsection no direction is given as to the basis upon which the sale shall take place. We had this yesterday in respect to road haulage. There is no direction that they shall endeavour, or shall, in fact, get the same amount for the undertaking as they themselves paid for it. There is none of the sticky argument, as obtains when we propose in Bills for public ownership, that the compensation to the private owners shall be the highest that the Conservative Party can persuade us to give. There is no guarantee whatever, no stipulation, and nothing to prevent the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, letting these things go at scrap prices or at inadequate prices.

Mr. G. Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Treasury would consent to assets being disposed of at scrap prices?

Mr. Morrison

I think, in the light of the nature of this Bill and of the discussions we have had, that a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Tory Minister of Transport are capable of doing that very thing. Indeed, there is nothing in this Clause which stipulates that there should be a fair valuation or a fair price. There is no arbitration tribunal set up in case of dispute. They just must let them go, and the Minister can direct that they must dispose of or sell off these things.

The British Transport Commission are in a big way of business in these things. They now own about 14,000 buses and coaches, they employ on these services round about 60,000 workpeople and the capital on the books in this respect is round about £50 million. Now powers are being taken whereby these things may have to be sold. It means, for example, that a direction can be given that Scottish Motor Services should be sold back to private ownership, presumably without stipulations about the conditions on which they should be sold. And we have been told from this side of the House that in Scotland there is a very highly integrated transport system, a system which is not perfect but is well developed.

Presumably it can be a direction also that Tillings, which took a bit of getting hold of, must be sold back to private enterprise. It is not only the case that the railway companies had powers of acquisition and powers to buy and exercised them. There has been all this talk of the evils of great undertakings, and I know that there can be evils in big undertakings, but this talk did not obtain when Tillings were building up a vast network of passenger road transport, when B.E.T. were building up a vast network or when, in Scotland and Wales and in London, vast undertakings of passenger road services were being built up by private enterprise.

If the principle of the Government is that road passenger services should be small local undertakings and that there should not be undertakings on a large scale, why is it that the Government are aiming all their shot and shell against the public authority and, as far as I can see, no shot and shell whatever against the big private transport undertakings? What will happen under this Bill? This is a different proposition from the road haulage undertakings. Even this Government who try to pose as being the friends of the small man in road commercial haulage—and it probably will not work out that way— included in this Bill a provision that there should be preference in selling small units of commercial road haulage transport undertakings.

But there is no intention in this Clause that odd buses should be sold off to odd buyers. Why not? If the principles of the Conservative Party are in favour of the small man, why not let the real pirates come in and have a go at it? Why not the man with one bus? After all there is nothing strange about it. He did exist in London.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

One bus per person.

Mr. Morrison

I would not go so far as to say that, because one would have congestion. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is always very ready to oblige with an irrelevant joke and we enjoy it. There is no indication that these buses will be sold in small units. Therefore, presumably, the idea is that they will be disposed of in large units, and the probability is that they will have to be disposed of in large units. They will either be disposed of to large-scale private capitalist investors who will float companies to run these undertakings on a large scale, or they will be sold to existing private enterprise omnibus undertakers and thereby increase the monopolistic position as regards private ownership. This is how it is bound to work out. This seems to me to be the scheme of the Bill.

9.15 p.m.

This is not a provision whereby the little man is going to be built up. This is a scheme whereby the big man, the big limited liability company, and the big monopoly radiating over a vast area are going to be built up. There will be no worry about a 10-mile radius then. The Minister has a hopeless, shocking prejudice against anything that is conducted under public auspices—I suppose except the Department which provides him with his salary. We can understand that he has a little bias the other way in that respect, and we do not blame him at all. But he has a shocking bias against any public authority owning anything. The Bill is loaded with prejudice against public authorities, and I say that it is loaded with prejudice in favour of private enterprise and, indeed, monopolistic conditions.

The inevitable net result of this Clause in operation is going to be that if the Minister exercises his powers—and much depends upon that, of course— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the Minister is in a dilemma and, desiring to give us some comfort, says that he is not going to exercise powers which I think are harmful, and if at the same time he can carry his hon. Friends with him, he will be a very happy Minister, and good luck to him. His dilemma is that if he pleases hon. Members opposite he upsets us, and if he pleases us he upsets his hon. Friends.

All the powers exist in this Clause for smashing up the economic and financial stability of the British Transport Commission in respect of road passenger transport services, for requiring them to get rid of public property on disadvantageous terms, not for the purpose of stimulating free competition on the part of the undertakers of limited size but, as I see it, with the inevitable result that they will increase the area, the coverage and the operations of large-scale private monopolies in respect of passenger transport. Then some day somebody has got to buy them back again. I can only say that when that day comes, if people think we are going to pay twice they have made a mistake.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

You will seize them next time? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying on behalf of the Labour Party, that next time they will just seize them?

Mr. Morrison

If the noble Lord does not mind, I always prefer my own language to his, and I propose to use my own language on this occasion. I know he wants to be helpful and make my speech for me, but with respect I will do without his help.

What are the Government doing under this Bill? They are seizing public property in a way, and giving powers to the Minister to get rid of it in any circumstances and at any price, even though it may be injuring the public undertaking, and at the same time building up a private monopoly in road passenger transport. We think it is very bad, and we think it is a scandal that this has got to be debated in a period of an hour and a half. After all, this Clause is absolutely contrary to evolution, to history, to what has now become tradition.

The Conservative Party in this respect are acting against their own principles. They claim to be the party with a respect for tradition and for precedent. They preach that they are the party of evolution—as long as there is not much evolution—rather than revolution. They believe in going steady. But here they are interfering with evolution, interfering with tradition and interfering with the existing practice which has been conducted and carried through, not by Socialists but by private capitalists—

Mr. G. Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about evolution. Earlier on he referred to railways. Is he not aware that the Great Western Railway was a pioneer of bus services and that they subsequently sold their interest and took a minority interest?

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman gives me my point. The Great Western Railway was a pioneer of bus services, but if the philosophy behind this Clause is right they should never have had a bus at all, because the doctrine of this Bill is that even though something is permitted to remain it is somehow wrong. There is something wrong if the British Transport Commission—which, under this Bill, will be mainly a railway concern—is involved in road passenger or road haulage services.

Mr. Wilson

Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," but he is very proud of the fact that the Great Western Railway was the first railway to start a bus service.

There is another point of some importance. One of the things that has been happening and must happen in railways is that where there is a branch line which is generally agreed to be uneconomic and which cannot survive economically, and when the public interest can equally well be served by a bus or coach service, it is clearly desirable that the change should take place. But how should it take place? If the railway is owned by an undertaking which is more or less exclusively a railway concern and cannot freely enter into the omnibus business the tendency will be for the railway to hang on to its branch line even though it is in the general interest that the branch line should be closed down.

This is where we come to the plea of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that this is a question of transport and not of railways or roads. Surely the best way to solve that problem, which is part of the process of co-ordination and of effecting proper economies in transport administration, is that the railway undertaking which is faced with an utterly uneconomic branch line—which happens from time to time, and in which case the railway has not a proper system of transport for that particular mileage—should be in a position to close down the railway and themselves substitute road passenger transport.

That is surely the sensible thing to do, as a matter of good business management. I do not say that the Clause will necessarily make it impossible in every case, but in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is knocking the Commission out of its business he is making it increasingly difficult for that sort of thing freely to be done. Moreover, we need a co-ordinated service between the road passenger and the railway undertakings. We need them to fit in to help each other. One can say what one likes, but it is going to be more difficult if they are under separate ownerships than if they are under the same ownership.

In connection with the London Passenger Transport Measure—I have mentioned it before, but it will bear mentioning again—there was a suggestion for a fly-over or fly-under junction at Aldgate. One line belonged to the District Railway, under Lord Ashfield, and the other to the Metropolitan, under Lord Aberconway. For years and years these gentlemen had been arguing about the construction of a fly-over or fly-under junction which would have enabled the traffic to flow freely, whereas they were getting in each other's way and slowing down the traffic. This argument went on for years and years, when everyone knew that such a junction was obviously the sensible thing to construct. What was the trouble? The trouble was there were two ownerships and the gentlemen could not agree. I know which one was the more difficult of the two. But that may be bias.

It was not until the London Passenger Transport Board came into existence that something happened. This illustrates that if there is to be a sensible handling of the physical assets of transport, the best way to get a sensible, free, imaginative handling is on the basis of some form of common ownership between the competing forms of transport. I am not against them competing with one another.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)

An absolute monopoly.

Mr. Morrison

The Joint Under-Secretary has, no doubt, been sitting there thinking great thoughts. After all, there are so many Ministers at the Scottish Office that they must have a lot of time for sitting around and thinking. He tries to put the words "absolute monopoly" into my mouth. As a matter of fact, the whole tendency of private enterprise in transport has been towards private monopoly, and in whole areas of the country there has been private monopoly or something to that effect.

I give that as an illustration. I do not mind competition and emulation between forms of transport, but co-ordination is needed and that means physical action, which is easier done if there is common ownership between various services, after which we get to the point whether the ownership should be public or private. The whole history of transport has been the history of evolutions and amalgamations. When I was a boy I remember Ball's bus, called the "City Paragon," I think, running from Brixton Hill to the Bank, and the driver was on top with a whip. He was a Conservative. A long time ago many bus drivers were Conservatives. They are nearly all Socialists now. That, of course, shows that the modern bus driver, with his alertness and movement about to dodge the trouble, has a more lively political temperament than the old horse bus driver, all of which illustrates the truth of Marxist materialistic conception that men's minds are influenced by the way they get their living.

There were amalgamations, and then the London General Omnibus Company came along and a whole series of amalgamations emerged. Exactly the same thing happened in the provinces and municipalities entered the business. Therefore, the whole story of transport is not in the direction of this Bill; it is away from it. One should add that there is this reservation, that the story of private enterprise in transport has been towards amalgamation and towards something approaching monopoly as far as they can get it. The Bill is not discouraging that, but encouraging it at the expense of public enterprise.

For these reasons, we think these two subsections ought to go out. We believe that every consideration of the Government's point of view shows that they are being shockingly biased against public authority. We think the Government are damaging a great public concern, that the financial consequences will be of serious injury to the public, and, therefore, they will be injuring the travelling public. We believe that these provisions are absolutely wrong and contrary to the public interest, and we trust that the Committee will wipe them out.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Jones

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in moving the deletion of this subsection. Hon. Members opposite say that they are seeking to destroy a monopoly, but so far as I can see monopoly is only a bad thing in the mind of the Minister when it is publicly owned. So long as the monopoly is privately owned the Minister is quite content to let it go on. Indeed, I suspect that some of his Friends at Stratton House are waiting for the Bill to become law in order that they might pounce upon some of the securities that the Bill gives him power to put on the market.

In an earlier discussion on an Amendment to the Clause, the Minister, and some of his hon. Friends sitting behind him, said that the opposition in the country to the area schemes was engineered in the main by ordinary members of the public. I hold in my hand a circular headed "Northern General Transport Company," and dated December, 1948. It is signed by Mr. G. W. Hayter, who is either the director or general manager of five omnibus companies operating in the North-East. A copy of the letter was sent to every member of every local authority in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in Durham and in Northumberland, inviting them to organise themselves to give the utmost opposition to any attempt on the part of the Transport Commission to establish an area scheme in the North-East. I shall endeavour to show in a moment the ramifications of the British Electric Traction Company in all parts of the country.

The Minister, when he spoke in the House in July, sought to create an impression that the opposition to area schemes in the North-East had come from trade unions, and it took until 10th November, and a Question by me in the House, for him to repudiate "trade unions" and to say that he made a mistake and should have said "trade unionists." Why did the Minister have to wait from 22nd July until he was questioned on 10th November? I have no doubt that he had many members of his staff, for many hours of their valuable time, searching the records not only of Berkeley Square House, but I suspect, of 55, Broadway as well, to find whether any trade unions had made objections.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The fact is that no one was as bright as the hon. Member to point out to me that I had made a slip of speech. I took the opportunity to point to Socialist-controlled councils who were wholly opposed to the scheme.

Mr. Jones

We shall come to the Socialist-controlled councils in a moment or two. The Minister is not trying to tell me that neither he nor those in control of his affairs at Berkeley Square House read the speech of 22nd July, and did not draw his attention to this matter. The fact is that the Minister would have been content to let the opinion get abroad that the trade unions were not in favour of areas schemes if he had not been challenged in the House by myself.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he could produce evidence from the trade unionists on the West Hartlepool Council. I challenge him to produce a single document to that effect. Of course, there are still the Driver Marsdens and Guard Birches in this country. If the Home Secretary were here, he would remember this conversation with Guard Birch some years ago. I challenge the Minister to produce a single document to show that a trade unionist member of West Hartlepool Council objected to the area scheme.

The right hon. Member went on to create the impression that the Labour-controlled councils of Gateshead, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and South Shields objected to the principle of the area scheme. I challenge him to produce evidence in that direction, too. I admit right away—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I gave an answer on the 10th November. I am not quite sure whether I should be in order in reading it out, but I suppose that I should be if the whole of the last five minutes of the debate has been in order.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am a little puzzled to know where this argument is leading.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I was particularly careful to distinguish those Socialist councils which opposed the scheme and those which opposed the scheme as drafted, and the hon. Gentleman, if I may use his own words, has waited a month to challenge my answer.

Mr. Jones

I have not had an opportunity.

The Deputy-Chairman

Whether the hon. Member has had an opportunity or not, does not seem to me to be relevant to this Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Jones

I would have challenged it had the opportunity presented itself. Let me go further and say this to the right hon. Gentleman. If the provisions of subsections 5 and 6 of the Bill become operative, what, in fact, will happen is this: The North-Eastern area—the area bounded by the Tees on one side and the Scottish border on the other—in which there are at present some eight or nine bus companies may possibly be controlled by the British Electric Traction Company.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was making his point about the British Electric Traction Company, the Minister got up to challenge his statement. I have in my hand a little booklet called "The Little Red Book," issued by "Passenger Transport"—by no stretch of imagination Socialist in outlook. On page 166, it gives the composition of the British Electric Traction Company, and it says this: The B.E.T. has substantial, and in many cases controlling interests in passenger road transport and other companies. The subsidiary and associated omnibus companies own and operate over 11,000 public service vehicles in England and Wales, and include the following undertakings, in some of which the British Transport Commission is also financially interested. In the intervening pages, they indicate by an asterisk exactly which companies are controlled, and, for the benefit of getting this on the records, I propose to read out these companies with the buses they control, so that the Committee may see exactly the ramifications of the British Electric Traction Company.

They are as follow: Aldershot and District Company, 347 buses; Midland Red, 1803; Black and White, Cheltenham, 81; Chatham and District, 53; County Motors, Huddersfield, 25; Devon General, 310; East Kent Road Car Company, 511; East Midland, Chesterfield, 203; East Yorks, Hull, 282; Gateshead and District, 72; Hastings Tramways, 49; Hebble Motors, Halifax, 84; James and Sons, Ammanford, 38; Maidstone and District, 816; Mexborough and Swinton Traction Company, 45; Northern General, Newcastle, 653; Oxford Motors, 247; Potteries Traction, Stoke, 500; Rhondda Transport, Porth, 211; Ribble, Preston, 1,155; Sheffield Tours, 95; South Downs, Brighton, 919; Llanelly Traction, 39; South West Transport, Swansea, 352; Standerwick, Blackpool, 117; Stratford Motors, 30; Sunderland Omnibus Company, 111; Trent Valley, Utoxeter, 431; Tynemouth and District, 67; Tyneside Tramways, 21; Wakefields, South Shields, 19; Western Welsh, Cardiff, 610; Yorkshire Traction, 375; and Yorkshire Woollen District, 308.

Mr. G. Wilson

Will the hon. Member say what proportion of the shares in those companies is owned by the Transport Commission?

Mr. Jones

There is not a single one of those companies in which the Commission own a majority shareholding. It is true that they own minority shares in some of them, but they do not control a single company. They are controlled by the British Electric Traction Company.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Who will control them when the Bill is passed? That is the question.

Mr. Jones

The purpose of these Clauses in the Bill, as I see it, is to give the Minister authority to force the Transport Commission to sell the majority holding which they have in other bus companies as and when the right hon. Gentleman decides. I suspect very much that Stratton House, Piccadilly, which is the headquarters of the B.E.T., will tell him when to put those securities on the market.

What will be the result? In the North-East, nine companies at present operate buses. Seven of them, owning 943 buses, are in the control of the British Electric Traction Company, with Mr. W. T. James as the managing director of each of the seven companies and with Mr. G. W. Hayter, who was so concerned about the North-Eastern scheme, as either the general manager or a director of each of these seven companies. Is there any wonder that he sent a circular to every local authority asking them to use their endeavours against the North-Eastern scheme? Is it any wonder that the Tory "stooges" on local authorities, including the West Hartlepool Town Council, have been playing Mr. Hayter's game?

The Transport Commission own, in the same area, 55 buses run under the name of Darlington Triumph, 71 buses run under the Durham and District and 1,035 run under the United Omnibus Services, of Darlington. What will happen if the Minister uses his power under these Clauses of the Bill to instruct the Commission to sell their majority shareholding in these three bus companies when Stratton House asks him to do so? [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they will do."] It will mean that every single bus operating in the North-East will be in the control of the British Electric Traction Company.

Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman, Some of my friends in the municipal passenger transport service tell me that Stratton House is already making preparations for when the Bill passes into law. Now we understand why the Minister wants a Guillotine. [Laughter.] I mean a Guillotine for the Bill. It might have been better for the country had the Guillotine fallen somewhere else.

What is likely to happen in South Wales? Eight companies are operating, six of them owned by the British Electric Traction Company and two by the Transport Commission. The Minister can check them on the list that he has in front of him. They are: Black and White, of Cheltenham; James, Ammanford; Rhondda Transport; Llanelly Traction; South Wales Transport, and Western Welsh, Cardiff. Between them, they control 1.331 buses.

There are two other companies operating in South Wales, Red and White of Chepstow and United Welsh of Chepstow, owning, between them, 741 buses. If this Bill becomes law and the British Electric Traction Company get their hands on the majority shareholdings in Red and White and United Welsh, there will be one single privately-owned monopoly operating every bus between the Severn on one side and Brecon Beacon on the other, the Bristol Channel on the third and Cardigan Bay on the fourth.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Keenan

What is the Minister for Welsh Affairs going to do about it?

Mr. Jones

I have already asked the Minister for Welsh Affairs what he will do about it.

No wonder the Minister of Transport wants this power and wants to deprive the publicly-owned partial monopoly of the Transport Commission of their holdings. He claims he dislikes monopoly, yet he does not propose to do anything at all about British Electric Traction Company. Is it because the British Electric Traction Company subscribed to the Woolton Fund, I wonder?

I hope that these two subsections will be defeated, because they would give the privately-owned monopoly, the British Electric Traction Company, an opportunity of getting a stranglehold on at least two important industrial areas of this country where millions of people will be at the mercy of a privately-owned bus undertaking.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

When the possibility arose of the reintroduction of some competition into transport, some of us thought that the simplest way of doing it would be to allow the Commission to continue much as at present but simply to allow private operators to run against them. For various reasons, that view was not taken and one reason, presumably, was the extremely strong position of the Commission. But there is clearly a danger which has been mentioned this evening, of at least a local monopoly even apart from the Commission.

I would ask the Minister to deal with one or two points arising from the Amendment. I understand from Clause 24 and the 1947 Act that the Commission are still empowered to run passenger transport themselves and, despite subsection (6), there is no power vested in the Minister to order the Commission to divest themselves of such transport but only of securities held in private bus companies. The case in which I am particularly interested is that where a branch line has been closed down or a series of wayside railway stations have been closed down and there is one bus company which, if it is not a monopoly, will become a monopoly when the line or the stations are closed.

Can the Minister assure us that when the results of the findings of the Committee inquiring into bus companies are known steps will be taken to see that bus companies are not put into a monopoly position? We have a case where Northern Roadways, a bus company, is prevented from coming into operation on certain routes because of the railways and other monopolists. I hope that the danger of a privately-owned monopoly growing up in the same way will be guarded against.

Secondly, can the Minister assure us that despite subsections (5) and (6) there is nothing to prevent the Commission running a bus service in an area where stations or a branch line have been closed down and there is no private operator? I appreciate that the main function of the Commission will be to run railways, and no doubt that is part of the reason for these subsections, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they will have the necessary power to intervene where there are no other services?

I do not quite understand why the Commission should not be allowed to acquire any undertaking under subsection (5, a) on the same terms as they are given powers under (5, b) to acquire an interest in an undertaking—that is to say, with the consent of the Minister. Why should they not acquire such an undertaking if the Minister is agreeable to such action? I do not see why the distinction is drawn between the two sub-paragraphs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I think the whole Committee enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I hope it does not sound patronising if I say that he is at his best in describing old days in London—London as it used to be. It seems to some of us that he then sometimes has a surer touch than when he is discussing new days and new problems in London. I must say in passing—although it would be out of order if I said more than a few words—that I wish he had shown the same respect for the evolutionary process which produced large numbers of very efficient small private hauliers when he violently interfered with that evolution by compulsory liquidation of those concerns five years ago.

Tonight he has directed his fire to two Amendments, to omit subsections (5) and (6). Perhaps I may put these subsections into perspective and reassure those in the Committee who are swayed by debate as to the reasons why they have been included. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the purpose of the subsections is to prevent the Commission from acquiring bus undertakings and, without the Minister's consent, from acquiring share control. It seems to us that the Commission already have an adequate interest in road passenger services. I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the Minister's power and the possibility of reproducing the same provision in the other subsection, and I will let him have an answer on Report stage.

But it seems to us that there has been a very substantial increase which is not to the public advantage. I shall not weary the Committee with figures, but in 1948, which is the first full year of the Commission's activity, in this field of road passenger service they acquired the remaining half interest in the Tilling group which was still privately owned and also bought out the minority interest in some Tilling subsidiaries.

At the end of the year their interest in road passenger services amounted to £31 million. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is now £50 million. They have become very substantial indeed as operators and owners, although they have wisely left the running of their concerns to private enterprise, which is one of the reasons, I think, why they have yielded adequate returns to the Commission. In Scotland, of course, the proportion is even higher. The total buses licensed in Scotland is some 8,000. Of these, B.T.C. control 4,381, local authorities control about 1,200 and private operators control the remainder.

The right hon. Gentleman talked as though what we were doing in the Clause was to take away the rather modest passenger interest which the old railway companies enjoyed. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. In our view, the right of acquisition of other undertakings or, without the Minister's consent, of shares which will give share control, should not be possible in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman then turned to that subsection which gives the Minister of the day power to compel the Commission to divest themselves of that part of their shareholding which gives them control. As he quite rightly says, this power is not mandatory but is permissive; the Minister is not obliged to exercise it. But it would be quite unrealistic to suggest that we should go to the trouble and possible, indeed certain, argument of introducing a Clause if the possibility of having used it had not entered our heads. Now the possibility, as I have said, must await the report of the Thesiger Committee.

On 28th October I announced in the House the names of the members of that Committee. All of them were distinguished people and many have considerable knowledge of passenger activities. I will not recapitulate them or cite the various organisations with which they have been associated from time to time. The Government, and I think all hon. Members, will be grateful to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thesiger, and other members of the Commitee for the time they are devoting to this most important inquiry.

I was very anxious that there should be such an inquiry for the following reasons. The 1930 Act, broadly speaking, has worked very well, and it has introduced ordered competition into the transport ser- vices in this country. But in recent years there have been significant changes which demand a review of the Act. One of the changes is that aspect of the activities of the Commission to which attention is being drawn tonight—how far the situation is altered by this very substantial acquisition in the field of passenger service by the British Transport Commission, with its complete railway monopoly, not only in Scotland but elsewhere.

As the Committee knows, I, like my predecessor, have the not very easy, and often unpleasant, task of acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on appeals under the 1930 Act. Not knowing much about the background of this business, I was beginning to wonder how far the interpretation of that Act was being altered by the existence of the large holding in passenger transport activities by the Commission, in Scotland or elsewhere. That is one of the aspects of the question to which the Thesiger Committee will be directing their attention.

Another aspect and a very important one which caused me concern, and also my predecessor who had a great many difficult decisions to make, is the disparity of fares between the road and rail passenger services, especially in regard to week-end leave for the personnel of R.A.F. camps. It was quite rightly held that if there was an alternative service which might save 8s. a week, that is a sum which would eat into the pay of an R.A.F. recruit. That is another aspect of the matter which I have asked the Committee to consider.

The third aspect is the decision of the High Court with regard to contract carriages about which I am not technically qualified to illumine the House. I must wait until the Thesiger Committee reports before I make any further statement about my intentions regarding the permissive powers I am taking in this Bill. But I can straight away disabuse the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South of any fear that we shall give away these great assets. There is no question whatever of their being given away. The power which this gives me is the authority to tell the Commission to divest themselves, not of their holdings in these companies, but of that proportion of the share capital which gives them actual control, and that is purely a permissive power. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), always try to paint a picture in which we are quite prepared, frivolously prepared, to build up a private monopoly, but in which we are deeply alarmed at the existence of a public monopoly. The story is not quite so simple or so easy as that. It is a very different situation when one is dealing with a company which is, quite rightly, subject to a host of other competitive influences, railways and the like, and when one is dealing with the activities of the Commission which have full monopoly powers on the railway.

One day the public might find that there is only one provider of transport all over Great Britain, and they would take very hardly indeed the attitude of a Government which had allowed such a situation to develop. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we shall watch very carefully to see that nothing in these proposals prejudices the running of alternative passenger facilities if small branch lines are closed.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also asked about the situation in regard to Northern Roadways. I am, of course, prevented from commenting on that because I have no fewer than three appeals before me at the moment. There is an Edinburgh—Glasgow—London appeal against the granting of licences to Northern Roadways, Scotland, and there are appeals in connection with services between Glasgow and Birmingham and Glasgow and Bournemouth.

10.0 p.m.

As long as these quasi-judicial responsibilities rest with me I cannot very well comment upon them in this Committee. No doubt one of the issues to which the Thesiger Committee will apply itself will be the question of the ultimate responsibility for very difficult decisions of this kind.

Finally, I come to what was said by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. I could, if need be, detain the Committee for a considerable time. Perhaps on the Report stage I can go through the remaining 200 companies that he did not list when he made his lightning summary of the situation. I tried to write down what he was saying as fast as I could, but not being qualified in shorthand I found myself two or three companies behind. However, it appeared to me that in about 75 per cent. of all the companies he mentioned the Transport Commission have a holding equal to the holding of B.E.T.

I do not propose to enter into a battle about the accuracy of these figures. There will be other opportunities for that. But, to put the matter a little more in perspective, I should like to mention a few companies. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Aldershot and District Traction Company. In this Company B.E.T. hold £82,000 of the share capital and B.T.C. hold £82,000. Figures for the East Yorkshire Motor Services are B.E.T., £149,000; B.T.C., £149,000. Figures for the East Kent Road Car Company Ltd. are B.E.T., £159,000: B.T.C., £159,000.

Mr. Callaghan

Of what?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Of share capital. The Hebble Motor Services Ltd. are the same. And then there is the company which always excites the interest and the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company Ltd. whose share issue capital is £1,540,000. The B.T.C. has in ordinary shares £720,000. These figures do not suggest that the public monopoly has not got quite a substantial interest in the activities of B.E.T.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me about Stratton House. One of the carrier pigeon services which is necessary in a debate of this kind was to enable me to know exactly who lived there. I did not know. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take that as a sign that I am not unduly influenced by anybody. However, I know this to be a most reputable and efficient company. I am delighted to think that a great Corporation like B.T.C. has so many happy marriages with them.

Mr. D. Jones

Will the Minister accept it from me that Mr. J. S. Wills, the chairman of British Electric Traction Co., is also chairman of Midland Red, and that Mr. W. T. James, director of the British Electric Traction Co. is chairman of the Aldershot Company?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that the Commission is prepared to trust its £720,000 holding in Midland Red to the chairman of that company.

Mr. Callaghan

In this battle of the books, I was hoping that the Minister might quote from the report which I saw passed to him when I challenged him on his previous figures when we were discussing the holding of the Transport Commission in some of these motor traction services, such as the Southdown Motor Services Ltd. Why has he relied upon the list which he has read out without referring to page 42 of the Financial and Statistical Accounts of the Transport Commission? There is a difference. What is it? Ought not the Minister, if he is giving us figures, to explain the difference? I will gladly give way if he will do so.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I quoted figures which are in this official list. To the best of my belief they are correct in every detail. I had them in a handy form so that I could relate them to the speech of whichever hon. Member raised the matter, but, if any one figure is inaccurate, and I have not had a chance to check them up with this document, which came to me quite recently, I will take the first public opportunity of correcting any mistake.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that, as I have said, where the holdings are equal, they are in fact equal in the ordinary stock. The only case in which it is necessary to make a distinction between ordinary and preference shares was in the Midland Red case, and there I said that it was £720,000 out of a share capital of £1,544,000, but I believe that in that case there were £32,000 kept in stock which they did not hold. However, I will clear up the matter if I am wrong.

Mr. Callaghan

It is typical of the Minister that he will rely on every document except that issued by the British Transport Commission. I do not know why he should wish to turn to these figures when there are plenty of copies of the Commission's Report scattered about the Committee, or why, in that case, the Minister should have to use a specially type-written document.

I will make the guess that the difference between the figures included in this Report and the figures that the Minister has quoted is that he is quoting the percentage of ordinary share capital and what is quoted here is, as is stated quite clearly, and as the Minister will see if he looks at page 42 of the Annual Report, the percentage of the issued share capital held by the Commission.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I repeat what I said—that, as far as I know, I quoted in most of the cases the ordinary capital, and where I saw, in this lightning calculation, that there was preference capital as well, I said so expressly in the case of the Midland Red.

Mr. Callaghan

I am much obliged to the Minister, although I do not think he has added anything further this time. At least, we can be clear that, when the Minister challenged my right hon. Friend that his figures were wrong, my right hon. Friend was quoting the percentage of issued share capital held by the Commission, as shown in the Report of the British Transport Commission.

As far as I know, where the British Transport Commission hold even as much as 50 per cent. of the ordinary share capital, in fact, control is expressly left to the British Electric Traction Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not know why; I am stating the facts. In one way, it is left there through the appointment of the chairman and of the directors. It is a remarkable thing that, as we go down through the list of bus companies, which starts up in the North-East with Newcastle and finishes up in Devonshire, the chairmen and managing directors are nearly always the same.

It is either a gentleman called Mr. James or a gentleman called Mr. Wills, and they must be the most ubiquitous people to be holding the managing directorships of companies as far apart as Devonshire and Northumberland and Kent and Lancashire, but they do manage them, and, what is more remarkable, they manage also, through some obliqueness of thought, to cover the same interests, for the annual report and the chairman's speech issued by the East Kent Car Company, in the person of Mr. James, or, may be, Mr. Wills, is in exactly the same form and the same terms as the annual report and the chairman's speech issued by the managing director of the Ribble Company, whether it be Mr. James or Mr. Wills. All are administered from London, and for the Minister to hold these people up as an example of competitive private enterprise is rather amusing to those of us who know the facts about the British Electric Traction Company.

Not only this, but laundries, and not only laundries, but cinemas, and not only cinemas, but also hotels, and so they run the whole gamut, under Mr. Wills and Mr. James, these two very remarkable men, who are on the spot, administering locally, with local control and initiative, the whole range of these wonderful enterprises. They are very efficient, but they are not really an example of small-scale private enterprise which the Minister is so fond of prating about.

However, I want to get on to other matters that concern us more immediately in this Clause. I would point out to the Minister—and he did not give the Committee any picture of this—that the evolution of bus undertakings over the last 30 years has been in the form of the creation of giant enterprises.

Before the war there were about 4,000 bus undertakings—there were probably more, but 4,000 would be a good minimum—two of which were giants under whose shadow all the rest survived. Those two giants were private enterprise companies, one, British Electric Traction, which I have been describing, and the other the Tillings Group.

It was the hope of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) when he inserted these Clauses into the 1947 Bill that those two very large-scale private enterprise units would voluntarily agree, in view of the terms of the 1947 Act, to be acquired in order that the process that had been going on of building up these units should be concluded and that they should be amalgamated into one public service.

Tillings were bought out. They came over and brought many thousands of vehicles with them. British Electric Traction, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools said, and as they were entitled to do, fought the Act the whole way through. They influenced local authorities, they conducted all the propaganda on this particular issue, and they appointed public relations officers in every area in order, I would say, to mislead the public about the reasons for this and what the consequences would be. They indulged in very specious propaganda, and, let us face it, they defeated the purposes of the 1947 Act, and they can take considerable credit for defeating those purposes.

But let us be clear what has happened. While they have defeated the purposes of the 1947 Act, they themselves have been building up their own private empire. They have not stood still since 1947, and this is where the Minister consistently paints an inaccurate picture to put before the Committee. I do not know whether he does it deliberately or because his information on this issue is incomplete. In the latter part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the substantial addition that had been made to the companies under the control of the British Transport Commission which he said was not in the public interest.

Why is it less in the public interest that the British Transport Commission should be able to acquire these additional units than that British Electric Traction should acquire them, because both have done so? Why does not the Minister, instead of painting this particular picture, tell us that both these two great enterprises—the only two which really matter in the bus field—the private enterprise British Electric Traction and the British Transport Commission, have been adding to their fleets?

If it is not in the public interest in the case of the B.T.C., then it is not in the public interest in the case of the B.E.T. Why is the Minister taking powers to break up the Commission's holdings when he is doing nothing about the holdings of B.E.T.? These are the fundamental points with which the Minister has not dealt, and this is what we have complained about in this Bill. It shows his bias against public in favour of private undertakings, irrespective of what his friends in private enterprise are doing. As the Minister responsible he is not holding the balance fairly between private and public enterprise.

I will quote the figures. In 1946–47, when the Transport Bill was being discussed, British Electric Traction and Tillings, the other big giants, owned between them 17,000 vehicles. Today, British Electric Traction and the British Transport Commission, who have taken over Tillings, now control between them 26,000 vehicles. Between 1946–47 and the present time they have increased their joint number of vehicles by 9,000. That is what I would have expected. It does not fill me with awe or alarm.

Mr. G. Wilson

Will the hon. Gentleman particularise as to how many are the B.T.C.'s and how many are the other's?

Mr. Callaghan

I can almost but not quite, and I hope that the hon. Member will not hold me to an exact figure.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I will gladly give way to the noble Lord if he has the figures.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

The B.T.C. figures for December are 14,000 and B.E.T.'s 11,500.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I had B.T.C.'s as 14,000 and B.E.T.'s as 11,000, so we are pretty near. There may well be some discrepancy, but these figures show that they are growing at something like the same rate and should be sufficient to fill the Minister with the sort of alarm which he ought to feel about B.E.T. If he is honest in his protestation that the British Transport Commission are building up a monopoly, why does he not deal with B.E.T. in the same way as be is dealing with B.T.C.? The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead us with this constant allegation that the British Transport Commission have a monopoly. He ought to know—and if he does not know he ought to be ashamed of himself—that the British Transport Commission have not a monopoly in this field.

The British Transport Commission, having organised these bus companies as bus companies, have to apply for a licence for every vehicle that runs on the route. I hear the Minister saying, "Hear, hear," and that means that he knows that it is open to any local operator, however big or however small, who can provide a service to go along to the licensing authority and say that he can provide a better or cheaper service than can the British Transport Commission's own companies, and that B.T.C. can be challenged and, if necessary, turned off that route. [An HON. MEMBER: "What a hope."] I do not know who said, "What a hope." All that I can say is that it has happened.

The Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South and the Parliamentary Secretary and myself have had some experience of this business. We have seen what has happened. I have seen these challenges made, not only against the British Transport Commission but against British Electric Traction and the small man has won on occasion. I thought, when I was there, that the small man put up a successful fight and, as far as I could semi-judicially lean, I used to lean on his side if necessary in order to give the public a better service. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!") What is wrong with that?

It seems to me extremely odd that the Conservative Party should claim that the British Transport Commission have a monopoly when in fact they can be challenged on every route. They will find that Ministers in Labour Governments and in Conservative Governments have permitted that challenge, as indeed they are bound to do under the law, and have accepted it and allowed new carriers to enter the service. What is wrong with this set-up? What is the Minister trying to do? What is so bad about this set-up?

It is really these fundamental considerations which the Minister has glossed over tonight that make us on this side of the Committee feel so indignant about the wreckage that may emerge from the Minister's proposals as contained in this Clause. According to the annual accounts of B.T.C. the fixed assets and goodwill amounts to £66 million. This body is getting as big as the road haulage undertaking and, let hon. Members believe me, the Minister's power for mischief in this Clause is just as great as it is in relation to the road haulage undertaking.

The profit that last year poured into the coffers of the British Transport Commission from these controlled bus companies was £3.8 million, and every year it has been between £3 million and £4 million. What is the Minister's objection to public enterprise making £4 million profit? [An HON. MEMBER: "His friends are not getting it."] I warn the Minister that in the compensation provision that seems to be in this Bill he may well be setting a new pattern for payment of compensation when companies are bought and sold. If any of these companies are disposed of at less than the market value, that in itself will be a guide and an indication of what the Conservative Government's view is about the proprieties of compensation. That must be watched in the future when we come to re-nationalise, as we shall do, as many of these undertakings as are necessary in order to provide an integrated public service.

If the British Electric Traction Company eat up the Tilling undertaking, as they may well do, and as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools feared, it will certainly make it easier to take over British Electric Traction later on. There will then be all the corpus and the skeleton of a national passenger service that will be much easier to acquire, and to that extent we shall be grateful to the Minister for having facilitated our task in that direction.

I regret very much that we have got a miserable hour and a half in which to debate an issue of such far-reaching importance as this. The Minister knows, if he understands this problem at all, that he is interfering with the whole process of the natural evolution of the bus undertakings of this country. He knows perfectly well that he is setting the clock back. I always understood that it was the Conservative philosophy that they should conserve what had been done and not break down what had been done. Where they are flying in defiance of their own philosophy and where a number of their own supporters are feeling very unhappy is that instead of conserving the best of what has been done by previous Governments, they are recklessly, wantonly and wilfully breaking it up irrespective of the public interest, for the sake of their private profit.

Mr. Sparks

Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the case made by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, there is no doubt that this part of Clause 16 can truly be regarded as an act of vandalism in its relation to the main transport system of British Railways. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said for denying the British Transport Commission or British Railways—it is the same thing under the new set-up—of the right to operate road passenger services could equally well be said in regard to the Commission retaining any of their road haulage services.

In Clause 4 the right hon. Gentleman admits, so far as road haulage is concerned, that it is right and just that the Commission should be enabled to retain those railways owned road haulage organisations which they had in their possession prior to nationalisation or road haulage organisations in which they had a financial interest. He proposes, in Clause 4, to permit the Commission to retain six-fifths of their road haulage strength prior to nationalisation. The argument in favour of that principle is equally strong in regard to the road passenger services, and I cannot understand why he should treat road haulage in a far more friendly and just manner than he proposes to treat the road passenger services of the Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that even prior to nationalisation the former railway companies had very substantial interests in quite a substantial proportion of the existing road passenger services. It is true that those road passenger undertakings continued under their previous auspices of a private enterprise organisation, but the railway companies had a substantial financial interest in those undertakings and, therefore, I should have thought, if the Minister and the Government were anxious to do the right thing by the country and by the Commission, they would be prepared to treat the road passenger services in precisely the manner that they treated the road haulage enterprises previously owned by the former railway companies.

The Minister must know that the former railway companies did not acquire an interest in road passenger services without a special, urgent reason, and that was to endeavour to integrate the services in certain special areas where there was difficulty with the main passenger services. Consequently, as a result of the integration of road passenger services with rail we had a co-ordinated service for long-distance travel by railway, finishing or commencing the journey by connections with road passenger organisations at certain important centres.

If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to prune away from the Commission these integrated road passenger services, the traveller must ultimately suffer because there will not be the incentives on the part of private enterprise to link up the local road passenger services with the railway trunk services. So we have this very glaring anomaly of the road haulage enterprise of the Commission being treated quite differently from the road passenger services.

Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far will convince anybody, and I am sure in his quiet moments it will not convince himself that he is treating the Commission and the public fairly and justly by taking away the road passenger services while, at the same time, permitting them to retain certain road haulage organisations. I would appeal to the Minister to think again about this matter because, on reflection, I am sure that he will realise that the ground upon which he stands now is very shaky indeed.

It is not sufficient to say he wants the powers in this Bill in anticipation of a report by the Thesiger Committee. The

Minister has not pledged himself to accept the findings of that Committee. If they find a way not suitable to him, he will retain the right to act in any way he thinks fit. Will he give an undertaking that the recommendations of the Committee will be accepted? Irrespective of the recommendations of the Committee he wants this power to disintegrate completely and disband and dismantle the very fine auxiliary passenger service which the Transport Commission have built up over the past four years.

Therefore, I hope that between now and the final stages of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously consider—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded. pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 8, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 264.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Shepherd, William
Hurd, A. R. Medlicott, Brig. F. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Mellor, Sir John Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Molson, A. H. E. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Snadden, W. McN.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Soames, Capt. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Spearman, A. C. M
Jennings, R. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Speir, R. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nabarro, G. D. N. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Nicholls, Harmar Stevens, G. P.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Kaberry, D. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Keeling, Sir Edward Nield, Basil (Chester) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P Storey, S.
Lambert, Hon. G. Nugent, G. R. H. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lambton, Viscount Nutting, Anthony Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Oakshott, H. D. Summers, G. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Sutcliffe, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Leather, E. H. C Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Teeling, W.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Osborne, C. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lindsay, Martin Partridge, E. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Linstead, H. N. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Llewellyn, D. T. Perkins, W. R. D. Tilney, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Touche, Sir Gordon
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Peyton, J. W. W. Turton, R. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Longden, Gilbert Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Vane, W. M. F.
Low, A. R. W. Powell, J. Enoch Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Vosper, D. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L. Wade, D. W.
McAdden, S. J. Profumo, J. D. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McCallum, Major D. Raikes, H. V. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
MoCorquodale, Rt, Hon. M. S Rayner, Brig. R. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Redmayne, M. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Remnant, Hon. P. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
McKibbin, A. J. Renton, D. L. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Robertson, Sir David Watkinson, H. A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Maclean, Fitzroy Robson-Brown. W. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Roper, Sir Harold Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Russell, R. S. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Wills, G.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Wood, Hon. R.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Savorys, Prof. Sir Douglas York. C.
Maude, Angus Schofield, Lt,-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Maudling, R. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr, Drewe and Mr. Studholme
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Adams, Richard Brockway, A. F. de Freitas, Geoffrey
Albu, A. H. Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Deer, G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Delargy, H. J.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Dodds, N. N.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Brown, Thomas (Ince) Donnelly, D. L.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Burke, W. A. Driberg, T. E. N.
Awbery, S. S. Burton, Miss F. E. Dugdale Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Bacon, Miss Alice Callaghan, L. J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Baird, J. Carmichael, J. Edelman, M.
Balfour, A. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Bartley, P. Chapman, W. D. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Beattie, J. Chetwynd, G. R. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Clunie, J. Ewart, R.
Bence, C. R. Coldrick, W. Fernyhough, E.
Benn, Wedgwood Collick, P. H. Fienburgh, W.
Benson, G. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Finch, H. J.
Beswick, F. Cove, W. G. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Follick, M.
Bing, G. H. C. Crosland, C. A. R. Foot, M. M.
Blackburn, F. Crossman, R. H. S. Forman, J. C.
Blenkinsop, A. Cullen, Mrs. A. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Blyton, W. R. Daines, P. Freeman, John (Watford)
Boardman, H. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Bowden, H. W. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Gibson, C. W.
Bowles, F. G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Glanville, James

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government of which notice had been given, to Clause 16, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Clause.

Amendments made: In page 24, leave out lines 9 and 10, and insert: (b) except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire or cause or permit any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by them to acquire any securities if the acquisition thereof. In line 22, after first "of," insert: the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission.

In line 23, leave out "that," and insert "the first mentioned."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

In line 27, after "dispose," insert: or, as the case may be, to cause the second mentioned body corporate to dispose."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 262.

Division No. 39] AYES [10.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Campbell, Sir David Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Carson, Hon. E. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Cary, Sir Robert Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Arbuthnot, John Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Gammans, L. D.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Glyn, Sir Ralph
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M. Cole, Norman Godber, J. B.
Baldwin, A. E. Colegate, W. A. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Banks, Col. C. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Gough, C. F. H.
Barber, Anthony Cooper-Key, E. M. Gower, H. R.
Barlow, Sir John Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Graham, Sir Fergus
Baxter, A. B. Cranborne, Viscount Gridley, Sir Arnold
Beach, Maj. Hicks Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Grimond, J.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Crouch, R. F. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Harden, J. R. E.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Hare, Hon. J. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Davidson, Viscountess Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside) Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Deedes, W. F. Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Birch, Nigel Digby, S. Wingfield Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E,)
Bishop, F. P. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Black, C. W. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hay, John
Boothby, R. J. G. Donner, P. W. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Bossom, A. C. Doughty, C. J. A. Heath, Edward
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Higgs, J. M. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward Drayson, G. B. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Braine, B. R. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hirst, Geoffrey
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Duthie, W. S. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hollis, M. C.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Brooman-White, R. C. Erroll, F. J. Holt, A. F.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Fell, A. Hope, Lord John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Finlay, Graeme Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bullard, D. G. Fisher, Nigel Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bullock, Capt. M. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Horobin, I. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Burden, F. F. A. Fort, R. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Butcher, H. W. Foster, John Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Shepherd, William
Hurd, A. R. Medlicott, Brig. F. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Mellor, Sir John Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Molson, A. H. E. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Snadden, W. McN.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Soames, Capt. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Spearman, A. C. M
Jennings, R. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Speir, R. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nabarro, G. D. N. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Nicholls, Harmar Stevens, G. P.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Kaberry, D. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Keeling, Sir Edward Nield, Basil (Chester) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P Storey, S.
Lambert, Hon. G. Nugent, G. R. H. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lambton, Viscount Nutting, Anthony Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Oakshott, H. D. Summers, G. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Sutcliffe, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Leather, E. H. C Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Teeling, W.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Osborne, C. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lindsay, Martin Partridge, E. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Linstead, H. N. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Llewellyn, D. T. Perkins, W. R. D. Tilney, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Touche, Sir Gordon
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Peyton, J. W. W. Turton, R. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Longden, Gilbert Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Vane, W. M. F.
Low, A. R. W. Powell, J. Enoch Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Vosper, D. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L. Wade, D. W.
McAdden, S. J. Profumo, J. D. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McCallum, Major D. Raikes, H. V. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
MoCorquodale, Rt, Hon. M. S Rayner, Brig. R. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Redmayne, M. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Remnant, Hon. P. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
McKibbin, A. J. Renton, D. L. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Robertson, Sir David Watkinson, H. A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Maclean, Fitzroy Robson-Brown. W. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Roper, Sir Harold Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Russell, R. S. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Wills, G.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Wood, Hon. R.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Savorys, Prof. Sir Douglas York. C.
Maude, Angus Schofield, Lt,-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Maudling, R. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr, Drewe and Mr. Studholme
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Adams, Richard Brockway, A. F. de Freitas, Geoffrey
Albu, A. H. Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Deer, G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Delargy, H. J.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Dodds, N. N.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Brown, Thomas (Ince) Donnelly, D. L.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Burke, W. A. Driberg, T. E. N.
Awbery, S. S. Burton, Miss F. E. Dugdale Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Bacon, Miss Alice Callaghan, L. J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Baird, J. Carmichael, J. Edelman, M.
Balfour, A. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Bartley, P. Chapman, W. D. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Beattie, J. Chetwynd, G. R. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Clunie, J. Ewart, R.
Bence, C. R. Coldrick, W. Fernyhough, E.
Benn, Wedgwood Collick, P. H. Fienburgh, W.
Benson, G. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Finch, H. J.
Beswick, F. Cove, W. G. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Follick, M.
Bing, G. H. C. Crosland, C. A. R. Foot, M. M.
Blackburn, F. Crossman, R. H. S. Forman, J. C.
Blenkinsop, A. Cullen, Mrs. A. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Blyton, W. R. Daines, P. Freeman, John (Watford)
Boardman, H. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Bowden, H. W. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Gibson, C. W.
Bowles, F. G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Glanville, James
Gooch, E. G. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Slater, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield) Mann, Mrs. Jean Snow, J. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Manuel, A. C. Sorensen, R. W.
Grey, C. F. Mayhew, C. P. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mellish, R. J. Sparks, J. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mikardo, Ian Steele, T.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Mitchison, G. R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Monslow, W. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Moody, A. S. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Hamilton, W. W. Morley, R. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Hannan, W. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Swingler, S. T.
Hardy, E. A. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Sylvester, G. 0.
Hargreaves, A. Mort, D. L. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Moyle, A. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hastings, S. Mulley, F. W. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hayman, F. H Murray, J. D. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Nally, W. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hobson, C. R. O'Brien, T. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Holman, P. Oldfield, W. H. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Houghton, Douglas Oliver, G. H. Thornton, E. (Farnworth)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Orbach, M. Thurtle, Ernest
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oswald, T. Timmons, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Padley, W. E. Tomney, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paget, R. T. Turner-Samuels, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Viant, S. P.
Janner, B. Palmer, A. F. M. Wallace, H. W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Pannell, Charles Watkins, T. E.
Jager, George (Goole) Pargiter, G. A. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Parker, J. Weitzman, D.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Paton, J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Johnson, James (Rugby) Pearson, A. Wells, William (Walsall)
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Peart, T. F. West, D. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Porter, G. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Wheeldon, W. E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Proctor, W. T. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Keenan, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E. )
Kenyon, C. Rankin, John Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Reeves, J. Wigg, George
King, Dr. H. M Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Kinley, J. Reid, William (Camlachie) Wilkins, W. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Rhodes, H. Willey, F. T.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Richards, R. Williams, David (Neath)
Lever, Harold (Cheatham) Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Lindgren, G. S. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Logan, D. G. Ross, William Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
MacColl, J. E. Schofield, S. (Barnsley) Wyatt, W. L.
McGhee, H. G. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Yates, V. F.
McInnes, J. Short, E. W. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
McKay, John (Wallsend) Shurmer, P. L. E.
McLeavy, F. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Division No. 40.] AYES 10.40 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Fell, A. Longden, Gilbert
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Finlay, Graeme Low, A. R. W.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Fisher, Nigel Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J Fletcher-Cooke, C. McAdden, S. J.
Arbuthnot, John Fort, R. McCallum, Major D.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Foster, John McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Baldwin, A. E. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell McKibbin, A. J.
Banks, Col. C. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Barber, Anthony Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Barlow, Sir John Gammans, L. D. Maclean, Fitzroy
Baxter, A. B. George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Beach, Maj. Hicks Glyn, Sir Ralph Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Godber, J. B. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Gough, C. F. H. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Gower, H. R. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Graham, Sir Fergus Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Gridley, Sir Arnold Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Bennett, William (Woodside) Grimond, J. Maude, Angus
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maudling, R.
Birch, Nigel Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.
Bishop, F. P. Hall, John (Wycombe) Medlicott, Brig. F.
Black, C. W. Harden, J. R. E. Mellor, Sir John
Boothby, R. J. G Hare, Hon. J. H. Molson, A. H. E.
Bossom, A. C. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Boyle, Sir Edward Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Braine, B. R. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Harvie-Watt, Sir George Nabarro, G. D. N.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Hay, John Nicholls, Harmar
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Heath, Edward Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Brooman-White, R. C. Higgs, J. M. C. Nield, Basil (Chester)
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nugent, G. R. H
Bullard, D. G. Hirst, Geoffrey Nutting, Anthony
Bullock, Capt. M. Holland-Martin, C. J Oakshott, H. D.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hollis, M. C. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Burden, F. F. A. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Holt, A. F. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Campbell, Sir David Hope, Lord John Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Orr-Ewing, Ian L, (Weston-super-Mare)
Carson, Hon. E, Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Osborne, C.
Cary, Sir Robert Horobin, I. M. Partridge, E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Peake, Rt. Hon. 0
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Perkins, W. R. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Cole, Norman Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Peyton, J. W. W.
Colegate, W. A. Hurd, A. R. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Powell, J. Enoch
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Profumo, J. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col 0. E Jennings, R. Raikes, H. V.
Crouch, R. F. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rayner, Brig. R
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Jones, A. (Hall Green) Redmayne, M
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Remnant, Hon. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Kaberry, D. Renton, D. L. M.
Davidson, Viscountess Keeling, Sir Edward Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Robson-Brown, W.
Deedes, W. F. Lambert, Hon. G. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Digby, S. Wingfield Lambton, Viscount Roper, Sir Harold
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Langford-Holt, J. A. Russell, R. S.
Donner, P. W. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Doughty, C. J. A. Leather, E. H. C. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Drayson, G. B. Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Drewe, C. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Scott, R. Donald
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond) Lindsay, Martin Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L. Linstead, H. N. Shepherd, William
Duthie, W. S. Llewellyn, D. T. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Erroll, F. J. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C Snadden, W. McN.
Soames, Capt. C. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Spearman, A. C. M. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Speir, R. M. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W ) Watkinson, H. A.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S ) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Stevens, G. P. Tilney, John White, Baker (Canterbury)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Touche, Sir Gordon Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Turton, R. H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Tweedsmuir, Lady Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Storey, S. Vane, W. M. F. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Wills, G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Vosper, D. F. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Summers, G. S. Wade, D. W. Wood, Hon. R.
Sutcliffe, H. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) York, C.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Walker-Smith, D. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Teeling, W. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Mr. Butcher and Mr. Studholme.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Edelman, M. Kinley, J.
Adams, Richard Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Albu, A. H. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Ewart, R. Lewis, Arthur
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Fernyhough, E. Lindgren, G. S.
Awbery, S. S. Fienburgh, W. Logan, D. G.
Bacon, Miss Alice Finch, H. J. MacColl, J. E.
Baird, J. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) McGhee, H G.
Balfour, A. Follick, M. McInnes, J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Foot, M. M. McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bartley, P. Forman, J. C. McLeavy, F.
Beattie, J. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Freeman, John (Watford) McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Bence, C. R. Freeman, Peter (Newport) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Benn, Wedgwood Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N Mainwaring, W. H.
Benson, G. Gibson, C. W. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Beswick, F. Glanville, James Mann, Mrs. Jean
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Gooch, E. G. Manuel, A. C.
Bing, G. H. C. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mayhew, C. P.
Blackburn, F. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Mellish, R. J.
Blenkinsop, A. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Mikardo, Ian
Blyton, W. R. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mitchison, G. R.
Boardman, H Grey, C. F. Monslow, W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moody, A. S.
Bowden, H. W. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Bowles, F. G. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Morley, R.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Brockway, A. F. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Mort, D. L.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hamilton, W. W. Moyle, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hannan, W. Mulley, F. W
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hardy, E. A. Murrey, J. D.
Burke, W. A. Hargreaves, A. Nally, W.
Burton, Miss F. E. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Callaghan, L. J. Hastings, S. Noal-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Carmichael, J. Hayman, F. H. O'Brien, T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Healey, Denis (Leeds. S. E.) Oldfield, W. H
Champion, A. J. Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Oliver, G. H.
Chapman, W. D Herbison, Miss M. Orbach, M.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hobson, C. R. Oswald, T.
Clunie, J. Holman, P. Padley, W. E.
Coldrick, W. Houghton, Douglas Paget, R. T.
Collick, P. H. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Cove, W. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Palmer, A. M. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pannell, Charles
Crosland, C. A. R. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pargiter, G. A.
Crossman, R. H. S. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Parker, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Janner, B. Paton, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Pearson, A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Jeger, George (Goole) Peart, T. F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Porter, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Johnson, James (Rugby) Proctor, W. T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, David (Hartlepool) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Deer, G. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Rankin, John
Delargy, H. J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reeves, J.
Dodds, N. N. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Donnelly, D. L. Keenan, W. Reid, William (Camlachie)
Driberg, T. E. N. Kenyon, C. Rhodes, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W Richards, R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. King, Dr. H. M. Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Stross, Dr. Barnett Wells, William (Walsall)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Swingler, S. T. West, D. G.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Sylvester, G. 0. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Ross, William Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Wheeldon, W. E.
Royle, C. Taylor, John (West Lothian) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Thomas, David (Aberdare) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Short, E. W. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wigg, George
Shurmer, P. L. E. Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Wilkins, W. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Willey, F. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Williams, David (Neath)
Slater, J. Thornton, E. (Farnworth) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Thurtle, Ernest Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Timmons, J. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Snow, J. W. Tomney, F. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Sorensen, R. W. Turner-Samuels, M. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Sparks, J. A. Viant, S. P. Wyatt, W. L.
Steele, T. Wallace, H. W. Yates, V. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Watkins, T. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J Weitzman, D. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.