Clause 8.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR REFUSING LICENCES.)

HC Deb 10 December 1952 vol 509 cc505-49

Mr. Ernest Davies

I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out subsection (1).

Owing to the ruthless dropping of the Guillotine, we jump now to Clause 8, not having been able to have any discussion, except one which was out of order on the part of the Minister, on Clause 7 or on the First Schedule.

On the face of it, it might appear that the provision in Clause 8 (1) is innocent, but I find it difficult to regard this without grave suspicion. On a first reading it is mere verbiage, and it is difficult to follow exactly what is the change in the procedure of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which is contemplated. I ask the Committee to listen to the two contrasting phrases, one which is to be substituted for the other, to see whether there is any real difference apparent in the words. The subsection says that the licensing authorities shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as of those of persons providing, facilities for transport". There is to be substituted for those words: shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport". It is difficult to see at first exactly what this means, but if one studies it in relation to the operation of the licensing Acts of 1930 and 1933, I think there is an effort here to attack the operation of the licensing system, as it has been administered up to the present time. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that there is something pernicious in this subsection, because it could be used to undermine the whole of the licensing system. I suggest to the Minister that if there is to be any change, it should not be introduced in this comprehensive Bill which deals with the re-organisation of our transport system, particularly the unnecessary and vicious de-nationalisation of road haulage, and the equally unnecessary re-organisation of the railways and the depriving of the Transport Commission of the right to operate road passenger transport.

This is not the place to monkey about with the licensing system. It is not relevant to the other Clauses of the Bill, it is not necessary for the operation of this Bill and the Minister should eliminate it. After all, he has decided that in the case of the road passenger licensing system there should be an investigation by an impartial committee. He has appointed the Thesiger Committee to inquire into its operation. In this case, if the Minister is to make any changes in the operation of the licensing system as regards goods vehicles, there is an equally strong case for appointing an impartial committee to inquire into the situation before he does so. He should not just slide it into this Bill hoping that it will not be observed by hon. Members.

5.45 p.m.

I fear that if this subsection remains it might lead to a return to the position which prevailed before the passing of the 1930 and 1933 Acts which, after all, were agreed Measures. The 1930 Act was passed by a Labour Government and the 1933 Act was passed by a Conservative Government so, if there is to be any amendment of those Acts, it should be brought about by the agreement of the two parties.

I refer to both Acts because the licensing provisions are similar. The basis of both those Acts is that additional transport facilities shall only be provided on the basis of need. In other words, new entrants in the case of road haulage have to prove that there is a need for new facilities because the existing facilities are inadequate. Later in the Clause it is suggested in subsection (3, a) that the onus of proof that there are grounds for objection shall lie on the objector. At the present time it is the other way round: the objector does not have to prove that there are existing facilities, the person who is making the application has to prove that there are inadequate facilities.

Once we depart from the principle of proving public need for new facilities, we open the way to a return to the conditions which prevailed before the licensing system was introduced under the 1930 and 1933 Acts to relieve the congestion on the roads. Thereby, of course, it contributed to greater public safety, to preventing wasteful and unnecessary services, and particularly to protecting existing facilities. Existing facilities, of course, included the railways and the basis of those Acts was the desire to give some protection to the railways since it was generally accepted that it was essential to maintain a national, solvent railway system.

The Acts have worked reasonably well; less well, perhaps, in the case of road haulage than they have in road passenger transport. As I understand it, the change of wording here would alter the basis on which the licensing authority decides whether to grant a licence or not. The emphasis would be shifted from the public interest generally to the interest of certain sections of the public, that is the travelling public concerned, and the providers of transport. I know it is very difficult to explain the way in which I look at it because the wording is so subtle, but I will try and make clear what I mean.

At the present time, the licensing authorities have to consider what is in the public interest, and, in so doing, they take into account the interest of the public in the whole of the country. They are concerned, for instance, with the necessity of maintaining a national railway service, of not allowing unnecessary transport facilities on the roads, and with other relevant matters. But by shifting the emphasis and removing the word "primarily" as a prefix to the interest of the public generally, it brings the matter down to the narrow viewpoint of the local situation and not to the country and the public interest as a whole.

This will mean that when the licensing authorities come to consider whether a licence should be granted or not they will have regard to the local situation, to whether the local public desire additional services and whether the operators wish to provide additional facilities. That is what it states here about those requiring facilities for transport and persons providing facilities for transport.

It is quite easy for potential road transport users in certain localities to be perfectly willing to say that they will send their goods by those particular vehicles if they are allowed to be put on the road and that they desire to have that facility. There may also be people able to provide that facility, but it may not be in the national interest that it should be provided, because the matter is being regarded from the narrow local viewpoint and not from the viewpoint of whether it will add congestion to the roads generally or will change the balance as between road and rail transport.

That is the only interpretation I can place on the Clause as at present drafted, because, if there is any other, why was the Clause inserted? There must be a meaning behind it, and there must be a purpose in drafting this subsection in the way it has been drafted. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.

There is another point. One cannot read subsection (1) without taking into account subsection (3, b). Here, again, there is a fundamental change which requires the licensing authority to take into account the charges that will be made. That is something quite new. Up to now, the licensing authority has not been required under the existing Acts to take into account such charges, and once this requirement is introduced there is the risk of a rate war.

For instance, if a transport operator says to the licensing authorities, "I am willing to operate a bus service," or "I am willing to carry goods," which is relevant to this particular subsection, "at a price lower than those charged by other operators for a similar service," he would, of course, be able to produce a section of the community who would say that they desired to have those facilities for the simple reason that they would then be able to send their goods at a cheaper rate than through existing operators.

Such an arrangement, of course, points the way to rate cutting on the profitable traffic and brings us back to the discussion we are always having as to the possibility of there being operators carrying only the profitable traffic while the public sector or those who are public minded are left with the unprofitable traffic. But if the licensing authority is to take into account the charges which the potential operator is going to make. it will, in many cases, have to grant a licence because the proposed rates undercut existing operators, and, of course, because there is a demand for those cheaper facilities.

If we look at each case individually, it has to be admitted that we are undermining our licensing system and are not having regard to the public interest. A rate war would certainly not serve the interests of the community as a whole. Under-cutting would produce excess facilities, congestion on the roads, and the danger that the unremunerative public services would not continue owing to the fact that those operating profitable services use the revenue from them to cover the loss on the unremunerative services.

This, of course, is one of the results of the licensing system, the system of restricting the number of operators, whether passenger or goods carrying, which enables the licensing authorities to influence the providers of transport to give a certain service where it is required and which they might not otherwise be willing to give. The protection which they get by restriction enables them to be sure that they will not be faced with excessive or unfair competition. Therefore, they can provide services which may be less remunerative than certain of their other services.

As I said at the outset, this is a very complicated provision, and I think it is regrettable that the Minister should have decided to introduce this subsection of a Clause into a Bill to which it is not relevant. It cannot in any way affect the denationalisation of road haulage, and I believe it would have been far better had the Minister followed the precedent he set in regard to road passenger services and appointed a Committee to look at the whole question of licensing. It is not fair in a major Bill of this kind to alter the whole balance of the licensing system, especially when, as I have stated, that system was agreed by both parties. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider this subsection with a view to withdrawing it so that the point may be given far more serious consideration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I gave the reply straight away. I am not so hopeful as to imagine that it may not demand further replies from me later on, but, in order to focus the discussion on the relatively limited points which arise on this Clause, I will deal straight away with the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

I can assure him that there is nothing at all sinister in this, although I quite agree that the matter is of sufficient importance to be worthy of proper discussion. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1930 Act, and when we get to Clause 16—we shall have three hours on that Clause—I shall be able, I hope, to make a few observations on the Thesiger Committee. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with it now.

Let me say straight away that both the 1930 Act and the 1933 Act are, I think, freely accepted by both political parties, and by the mass of public opinion outside. This Clause does not in any way do some of the great disturbing things that the hon. Gentleman fears. It certainly does not shift the emphasis from the need of the public to the interest of transport. It shifts the emphasis from the providers of transport to the users of transport. Later I will give illustrations in a little more detail of exactly how it does that.

6.0 p.m.

Our purpose—and this makes this Clause very relevant to the Bill—is to secure more freedom in the issue of carriers' licences for road goods vehicles where it is apparent that a better service can be provided. We believe in freedom and ordered competition, and I certainly have no wish to establish a closed shop for capitalists. It is for the good of everybody that the power to enter a business of this kind should not be unreasonably restricted. We do not need a committee to inquire into this, for we have had nearly 20 years' experience of the working of this 1933 Act, and it has worked very well indeed.

But the 20 years' experience has led us to think that a body of case law is being built up, the facts of which are prejudicial to the public interest. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the onus of proof has hitherto lain fairly and squarely on the applicant for a licence. I shall not weary the Committee with many illustrations, but these are some of the cases that come to my Department and my predecessors must have been conscious of them and some of the comments which are made. Here is one: In addition to proof of persons ready and willing to employ him, an applicant must satisfy the licensing authority that the work cannot be done by other existing carriers, road or rail. How can an applicant prove that? It cannot be done by another supplier. Again: Although it is a fact that there is available work for the applicant, the licence shall not be granted unless he proves there is no other carrier able to do it. While he may not necessarily get that information, he has the information that there is a desire for a better service. Then, again, the burden of proving an objection lies not with the objector but with the applicant.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

On a point of order. The Minister appears to be reading from an official document. May we have it laid upon the Table?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

These are all abstracts from the decisions of the appeals tribunals which are published. I will provide the hon. Member with the information as to where he can get them. They are not confidential, and if he feels that he would like to see them I will provide him with the details. I have only given a few illustrations.

Mr. Fletcher

May I have your Ruling, Sir Charles? I understand that the Minister has quoted from an official document. He says he can tell us where it can be found, but he has not told us what it is. I understood the rule to be that if the Minister quotes from an official document it should be laid on the Table.

The Chairman

I am under the impression—I have not got the Manual of Procedure at the moment to look it up—that what must be laid are what are called State documents, and I do not think that this comes under that category. It is available anyway, so I do not have to rule on it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have given a few illustrations and I could give many more, but these are brought to show this conclusion, that the burden of proof should be tilted. It is tilted and shifted in this Bill. One of the consequences of the difficulty of a new applicant getting a carriers' licence is—

The Chairman

I have now had time to look up the Manual of Procedure. It says: If the Minister of the Crown quotes in the House a dispatch or other state paper which has not been presented to the House, he ought to lay it on the table. I do not think that that could possibly be brought in under this Clause.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I do not think I went against that rule.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Is not a duty laid upon a Minister, even if it is not necessary for the document to be placed upon the Table, clearly to give the source of his quotation?

The Chairman

The Minister has done that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very prickly about this. It must be because they have a feeling that there is a great deal to be said for these changes and they do not like the evidence being produced whereby that conclusion has been reached. I would have read in each case the particular district where the decision was given—

Mr. Thomas

That is what we want.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

—but I was sparing the time of the Committee. I was not trying to hide anything, and there is no sinister intention in reading out what I did. There are about 50 cases shown on this sheet, and I will be glad to show them to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) afterwards, if he wishes, and he can raise the subject any time he likes after that.

Mr. Thomas

Make it available for the use of Members now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

It is our conviction that one of the consequences of this difficulty of new entrants to get licences has been this huge growth in the number of C licences which has distorted road traffic. Whereas between 1947 and 1952 the number of A and B licences only increased by 8,000, the number of C licences nearly doubled from 487,000 to 820,000. I do not want to place too much importance on that argument, but I believe it has been a factor in the very substantial growth of C licences.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but my distinct impression is that there has been a similar growth practically in every other country, and in a number of other countries the number has been even a larger one as between the vehicles corresponding to these two types.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find, taking the European illustration, that the disproportionate increase between C and A and B licences is mirrored elsewhere. That would provide an interesting subject for discussion, but I am afraid it would be a little out of order now.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is moving an Amendment to Clause 8 to leave out Subsection (1). The next Amendment which he proposes to move draws attention to the change in emphasis, and he says we are now putting the emphasis wrongly on the objector and not on the applicant as it ought to be. But, as I hope I have made it plain, it is in our view right that an applicant, who cannot have all the information on which he can base his case under the old procedure, will be able himself to prove that the emphasis should be on the objector to prove that there is no need.

Of course, an applicant cannot go to the licensing authority and demand a licence. He has got to show that some need exists, but what he has not got to do under these new proposals is to disprove that existing services are adequate.

Mr. Mitchison

rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I hope I may be allowed to develop this argument, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is a complicated matter.

Mr. Mitchison

I want to raise a point of order. I do not object to the Minister developing this some time, but are we discussing this Amendment? What I understood we were doing was discussing the subsequent Amendment as well, which begins by leaving out lines 36 to 38. Those are the lines which relate to the onus of proof.

The Chairman

We are discussing only one Amendment now. The Amendment mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the next one to be called.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if these two Amendments could be considered together?

Hon. Members

No.

The Chairman

I am in the hands of the Committee, but I gather not.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

We did have remarks from the hon. Member for Enfield, East about the onus of proof, and I felt it only right at this stage to deal with it, but if it is desired by the Opposition—I am in their hands as much as you, Sir Charles, are on a matter of this kind—I am quite prepared to leave the development of the arguments about the onus of proof and of the including of charges under subsection (3, b) to later Amendments. I am not sure, however, that there is an Amendment to omit the charges. The hon. Member did refer to them, and as it is an important point I should not like what he said to go on record unchallenged because I do not think his conclusions are right. I do not think I will have an opportunity to deal with it later, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss these Amendments together.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I see the Minister's point, and there is something to be said for it, that all these things might go together, but there are different points which we have included in the next two Amendments which really make it rather difficult for us to agree with the Minister. I think it would confuse the issue if we took too much at the same time. I suggest we stand by the first Amendment and discuss it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will do exactly what you rule, Sir Charles, and what the Opposition wish in this matter. Had I been here at the moment that this Amendment was moved I would have suggested that we should take all these Amendments altogether. I think it was my first departure from the Committee, and it was for only three minutes. I would have suggested that it might be for the general convenience to do so. What the hon. Gentleman said on charges ought to be dealt with at some time, and perhaps I might deal with it briefly now, since the hon. Gentleman gave a great deal of attention to it.

The Chairman

The Guillotine will fall at 7.30, and there are still many Amendments to be called.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

On a point of order. In opening the discussion, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) devoted practically the whole of the time to a discussion of subsection (3, a, and b). May I suggest that it is nearly impossible to dissociate the matter in subsection (1) from the matter in the paragraphs to which I have just referred, because the traffic courts and the licensing authority deal with matters in such close association that the Amendments are practically inseparable?

The Chairman

On that point, I was advised that the Amendments can stand by themselves.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I put a specific point to the Minister about subsection (1). I wanted to know the reasons for the change, and I am sure that he can answer that point without discussing the whole Clause.

Mr. Powell

I submit that subsection (1), although the Amendments to it do not hang together, is, in a sense, consequential upon the rest of the Clause. The subsection is necessitated partly by the changes in the law which the rest of the Clause makes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my submission. It is therefore impossible to discuss subsection (1) without explaining the tenor of the Clause upon which it is consequential.

The Chairman

I can only go by the advice which I get from my advisers. That advice is that these Amendments can stand by themselves.

Mr. Powell

I was not denying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] No. I was saying that the Amendment can be dealt with only by explaining the whole Clause, since the subsection expresses the effect of the alterations in the law which the rest of the Clause makes. Although, therefore, the different Amendments are separate, it is not practicable to justify subsection (1) without a full discussion of the effect of the Clause as such.

The Chairman

It is rather difficult for me to answer that argument because I do not happen to be a lawyer, or an expert in any way; but I do get the best possible advice, and I stand by it.

Mr. Callaghan

At the risk of detaining the Committee a little longer, I would point out that subsection (1) relates to Section 6 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act dealing with the licensing authority's duty as to the granting or refusing of a licence, and subsection (3) relates to Section 11 of the Act, which is entirely different and is drawn separately for the purpose of dealing with objections to applications for licences and with variations of licences. This fact, I suggest, underlies the Ruling which you have given. Therefore, if it was possible in the Act for those two subjects to be separated and to be put into different Sections, why is it not possible for us to discuss them separately now?

The Chairman

I can only offer the hon. Gentleman my thanks for that support, which I do not understand.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

We are considering the Amendment to leave out subsection (1), which proposes that instead of the words in Section 6 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as of those of persons providing, facilities for transport, there shall be substituted: shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport. The effect will be to put the public need for transport into a more important position than it was before. In our view, that is as it should be, and I commend subsection (1) to the Committee with confidence.

On subsection (3), the hon. Gentleman referred to the inclusion of charges as one of the factors of which the licensing authority, for the first time, must now take cognisance. I will not go beyond a few simple statements on that matter. In our view, it is highly desirable that the question of charges should be in the mind of the licensing authority. It should not dominate his mind, but it ought, along with other considerations, be in his mind.

Were it not that I do not want to get out of order I would read again from the document to show the large number of occasions when the licensing authority have expressly announced that they could not take account of the provision of cheaper facilities because that was not one of those considerations to which they ought to apply their mind. The licensing authority will not, I am sure, take account of charges when the only factor is a charge reduction offered by some other operator who can give no assurance of continuous or desirable service. If someone came along to make quick profits at cheaper rates it would obviously be very wrong that he should be given a licence to enable him to do so and, as soon as he had creamed the traffic, to depart elsewhere.

All that we are anxious about is that the licensing authority should have regard to charges in deciding whether or not it should grant a licence. There will be no other place in which to deal with that point, except when we discuss Clause 8 as a whole, but there will be another opportunity to deal with the onus of proof on the applicant. I will keep any other remarks I have to make until that moment in our deliberation is reached.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I was very suspicious about Clause 8 (1) when I first read it. I am far more suspicious now that I have heard what the Minister has to say about it.

The subsection proposes not merely a change of emphasis. The suspicions of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) are well founded. The subsection makes a fundamental change in the law. I see no reason why the Minister should try to slip this irrelevant subsection into the Bill dealing with a totally different subject. There is no need for this change in the licensing system to be introduced in this way. The Minister was anxious to get away from the real point of the Amendment and to deal with various other points arising on this Clause. He did not face up to the real argument of my hon. Friend in moving the deletion of the subsection.

The point may look a little subtle at first glance, but if we look into it we find that it conceals a radical change. Section 6 of the Act of 1933, as it stands at present, says that it is the primary duty of the licensing authority to have regard to the public interest. The object of the change proposed in the Bill is to require the licensing authority to have regard primarily to the interests of those requiring facilities for transport and secondarily to the interests of persons providing facilities for transport. In other words, the public interest is relegated to at any rate the third place. Indeed, the public interest is practically relegated to nowhere, and that is what we object to.

As the law stands, it is the duty of the licensing authority to have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally. That is now being changed into something different. The licensing authority is to have regard to the interests of the public generally, but that will mean, as the new text says, primarily the interests of the consumers and the road hauliers next, with the public interest nowhere. The Minister has not faced up to the real charge. It is quite wrong for the Minister to say that case law has been built up showing the present law is prejudicial to the public interest. On the contrary, case law—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

rose—

Mr. Fletcher

May I finish the sentence? Case law has shown that the law has been applied in the interests of the public, and that is what the Minister is seeking to change.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I was dealing with case law in cases in which the onus of proof is on the applicant and not on the objector. We have postponed consideration of that to a later Amendment. I was not dealing with any case law that may have arisen over the interpretation of these words in the 1933 Act.

Mr. Fletcher

That reinforces what I have been saying. The Minister has now admitted that there is no case law requiring this change. There is no justification whatever for introducing this radical alteration of the law, the only object of which is to prejudice the interests of the general public as distinct from hauliers and their customers.

Mr. Nabarro

I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown a commendable approach to the problems which have inevitably arisen as a result of the 19 or 20 years' experience of the working of the 1930 and 1933 Acts. I doubt whether there is any serious objection, in any part of the House, to the principal provisions of those Acts, other than perhaps the lunatic laissez faire approach on the part of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches opposite, which was suggested on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the A, B, and C licences should be abolished.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Charles, to refer to an hon. Member as a lunatic?

The Chairman

We must not call each other lunatics, although the word might be applied to the things we produce.

Mr. Mitchison

Is it not the case, Sir Charles, that the names down to the Amendment represent a whole party and that one can libel a whole party quite safely?

The Chairman

That was not my Ruling.

Mr. Nabarro

I think that my right hon. Friend's approach to this problem is commendable because, during the period since 1930–33 when these extremely intricate Acts were placed on the Statute Book, there has been built up, not only a vast body of case law, but all the inevitable complexities of interpreting exactly what the statutes mean.

It was for that reason that I was so pleased that my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago established the Thesiger Committee. In reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who intervened to say, "Why have a Committee in the case of passenger road transport and not one in the case of goods transport?" I would say that there are special problems relating to passenger transport which it is urgently necessary should be elucidated. For instance, the whole of the state of the law in regard to private parties carried by passenger road transport is in such a confused condition today that it urgently needs clarification and, perhaps, making the subject of future legislation.

Mr. Irvine

While granting that it may be desirable to have a change in the licensing law in that respect, does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as extremely undesirable that such a change should coincide with a change of ownership of transport?

Mr. Nabarro

I think not. I think that these matters ought to be considered in relation one to another.

Mr. Irvine

Does not the fact that the changes coincide imply that the motive is to assist the new owners?

Mr. Nabarro

I think that suggestion displays undue suspicion. I think that it is desirable that these problems should be considered in association with one another. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) made great play of rather intricate changes which the first subsection of this Clause will create. I think there is nothing undesirable in the words: the interests of the public generally … including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport. Surely the proper interpretation of that is that the licensing authority must have overwhelming regard to public demand. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say "overwhelming" because the public demand, in this context, is a demand for a road service, and the public are entitled to expect that the licensing authority shall have a prior regard to the provision of the necessary facilities.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to contend that the licensing court should have primary consideration for a particular applicant? That is the point.

Mr. Nabarro

I am not suggesting that. I have not suggested any favouritism in respect of a particular applicant. What I have said is that there should be a prior regard to the public need, which is an altogether different consideration.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The hon. Gentleman has changed his stand. He did not use the word "need" before. He said, "If there is a demand." Demand does not correspond with need. The whole argument which I put forward was, that when we bring charges in, we will always find a demand for services at the lower charges which are available. That is the basis of my argument.

Mr. Nabarro

I do not intend to devote much of my short intervention to the question of charges because you, Sir Charles, ruled earlier that we should have a full opportunity to discuss them later. [Interruption.] I think that it was your Ruling, Sir Charles, that subsection (3, b), dealing specifically with charges, would not be the principal consideration during this Amendment.

The Chairman

I did not promise that it would be discussed, because the Guillotine falls in an hour's time.

Mr. Nabarro

We shall have an opportunity of discussing it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman

Very probably not, if the Question has to be put forthwith

Mr. Nabarro

Let me return to the point of demand and need. Demand and need in this context are, in my view, practically synonymous. I think that it is only an attempt to make a clever debating point on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East to suggest that otherwise is the case. In connection with this general matter of the interpretation and the consideration of charges as one of the relevant factors which will be in the discretion and in the consideration of the licensing authority, I believe that in the last 15 or 20 years the licensing authority has, in many instances, considered these problems in rather an artificial atmosphere, in not being able to consider the relevance of the charges.

I have never belonged to a school of thought which says that charges should he the sole arbiter of whether a new service should be provided. That would be clearly wrong. But it is reasonable to say that charges are one factor, and a very relevant factor, particularly where all other circumstances are of equal importance. I believe that it will bring manifold advantages to write into the discretion of the licensing authority the factor that charges may be made one of the subjects to be considered, but not the principal one.

I can see that the importance of the changes in this Clause are that they show a fresh approach to the duties and discretion of the licensing authorities up and down the country. Every hon. Member of this House who has attended traffic courts and listened to the endless arguments that go on about whether or not new licences shall be granted, must realise that the 1930 and 1933 Acts ought to be amended from time to time in the light of the experience of their operation. The Thesiger Committee, on the one hand, was dealing with the passenger side. We believe that Clause 8 of this Bill and the consequential changes in the law will remedy many difficulties and anomalies that have existed on the freight side.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

We have heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). His closing remarks were particularly interesting when he compared this discussion with those of the Thesiger Committee concerning passenger transport. I hope that that Committee was not restricted to an hour and a half's discussion nor subject to the Guillotine. That happens to be the position in which we find ourselves and is precisely the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman for the contention that this kind of proposition should be referred to a more full and adequate discussion on another occasion and not as part of the Bill.

It might also please the hon. Member to refer to the Liberal Party, who are, apparently, the only custodians of the political slogan "Set the people free," as being on the "lunatic fringe"; but that is at least understandable—they stand for private enterprise. What we are getting from the other side of the Committee in the whole of these debates is an attempt to hold on to their old shibboleths of private enterprise and setting the people free, at the same time trying to keep on the shackles and to make them as little recognisable as possible. That is how the difference between us arises.

The argument that the Minister put up in defence of subsection (1) of the Clause was precisely what we expected, and we congratulate him at least on his frankness. What he was saying—it has been repeated more than once, and bears repeating again—is that already legislation provides that licences shall only be permitted where the interests of the public generally are involved—not necessarily any particular section of the public which may be interested in getting a preferential transport system, whether they be a group of farmers or anything else, but the public generally.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Transport referred not only to the question of the most adequate facilities for hauling goods to and from certain points, but the questions of overcrowding of the roads, public safety, the condition of vehicles that are to be used in the interests of public safety and of the safety and well-being of the drivers and others, and the conditions of employment. These are the matters that are covered by the phrase "the public generally" in the original Acts, and it is those interests that were put in the forefront in those provisions as well as the interests of those persons providing facilities for transport.

What is proposed in the Bill is that the interests of the public generally—that is, all other interests apart from those immediately requiring a road haulage service to and from their doors—shall be dropped completely; that goes out. The licence shall then be granted having regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport. The Minister has referred to difficulties which, he claims, have arisen in the operation of the licensing system, and he spoke of the complexity of the 1933 Act. But that was not a particularly complex measure in terms of Acts of Parliament. Both the 1933 Act and the 1930 Act were comparatively straightforward, but the Minister referred to that of 1933 as an Act of complexity and involving a tremendous amount of case law. Then, the hon. Member for Kidderminster emphasised that argument and said that that case law was leading to all kinds of difficulties, as anyone who had attended a licensing court would know, and so on. But the speeches of the Minister and of others on the other side are not devoted to a Clause which proposes to abolish the licensing courts. This alteration of the wording will not of itself remove the complexity nor reduce the amount of case law. Indeed, the Bill having brought in other considerations, there will be an increase in the amount of case law and in the complexity, and the argument of the hon. Member regarding the difficulties of licensing courts has, therefore, gone completely.

Mr. Nabarro

I used the argument primarily in regard to complexity and to the building up of a vast body of case law on the passenger side. The need for the appointment of the Thesiger Committee arose particularly to make recommendations as to clarification of the law. It is however, to a lesser extent true in regard to the operation of the traffic courts on road freight traffic.

Mr. Hynd

I thank the hon. Member. I completely misunderstood his argument, which, I thought, referred to the Clause that we are discussing. Apparently, his argument dealt instead with passenger transport. The Minister certainly was referring to road haulage licences, and I think that his case goes completely once it is recognised that he is not trying to abolish these courts nor trying in any way to simplify the procedure.

Has there at any time been any official recommendation from the licensing authorities or from any other official body that the conditions of the 1933 Act are inoperable, or that they are too complex and complicated and ought to be altered? One or two instances of difficulties which the Minister quoted are not of course, unexpected, in any kind of courts where all kinds of circumstances and conditions can be argued, and one can point to individual cases where it is submitted that certain difficulties exist.

What was the reason for the licensing courts? When one talks about the difficulties since the 1933 Act, are we forgetting entirely the difficulties that existed prior to that and which made it necessary for these courts to be set up? Would any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite seek to suggest that the conditions of the roads in the interests of the public generally, the general condition in road haulage in the interests of the employees, the efficiency of service or any other aspect of conditions, have not improved since the 1933 Act largely because of the licensing system?

Let me remind the Minister and his colleagues that the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931 from which these licensing arrangements sprang, reported on the large number of newcomers which had created a condition which amounted almost to complete chaos. Part of the Minister's argument in favour of the Clause is that he wants again to encourage more newcomers. He wants to go back as quickly as possible, presumably, to the chaos for which the Commission was set up to try to find a solution, and part of which solution was in the licensing system.

One could quote in extenso from that report to show the conditions that existed at the time, but I only remind the Minister of this. Not only the evidence of the Transport and General Workers Union, but the evidence of the National Road Transport Employers Federation, the long-distance road haulage Committee of Inquiry and other organisations of the kind, both on the workers' side and on the employers' side, admitted and accepted the necessity for some kind of control over the chaos which had been created on the roads precisely because of the large number of newcomers who had come in in order to create the competition of which hon. Members opposite are so fond. It was because of their evidence that the licensing system was set up.

In the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission, paragraph 331 of the Report says: We have on the one side organised undertakings bound by their statutes, agreements, rules, practices, and all other adjuncts which are associated with a highly organised business; while on the other we find that the goods branch of the road transport industry is in a condition which lacks all unity and is operated by a number of independent firms and individuals who, while endeavouring to compete with other forms of transport, are at the same time engaged in bitter and uneconomic strife with each other in their own particular branch. Those are the conditions which led to the setting up of the licensing arrangements, and it is in order that these conditions should not be destroyed, so that there should be, at least, some kind of control on the number of vehicles to be let loose on the roads and to prevent a return to the kind of conditions to which the Report of the Royal Commission refers, that we are strongly opposed to the alteration that it is sought to make in the conditions for the issue of licences.

Mr. Holt

Would the hon. Member explain to the Committee that the serious conditions which he said existed in the transport industry in the early 1930's also existed in nearly every other industry in the country at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and will he explain why the Government of the time did not think it right to set up a licensing system in those industries as well?

Mr. Hynd

That is a most astounding proposition. Surely the hon. Member is not unaware of the developments in transport since the end of the 1914–18 war and the completely unprecedented situation which had arisen owing to the loosing of hundreds of thousands of vehicles on to the roads, which had never been there before. I recommend him to read the Report of the Royal Commission and he will find a completely unprecedented set of conditions in the situation which had arisen in road transport.

This was not the first Royal Commission on transport by any means but, because of those facts, its Report was followed by two Acts of Parliament attempting to bring order out of chaos. There was the London Passenger Transport Act, which was not passed by a Labour Government. That organisation has had much longer to co-ordinate its services and set up the efficient service which it provides than either the Road Haulage Executive or the Transport Commission have had. I recommend not only the hon. Member who interrupted but the Minister and his friends, who are seeking to go back to those conditions, to study the conditions which led to that situation and I hope that the Amendment will be agreed to.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald)

It may possibly be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word or two about the legal effects of Clause 8 (1). As I read it, there is no less consideration for the interests of the public in the words proposed to be substituted than there were in the original words. Originally, the Act said: shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally including certain matters. Now there is substituted the words: shall have regard to the interests of the public generally so even more emphasis is being placed on the interests of the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I am sorry, but I am simply offering an opinion; it may be wrong. The words following are introduced by the word "including" and not "consisting of." Therefore, the words primarily those … requiring facilities … and those … providing facilities are included in the public generally and the provision does include, "other interests of the public."

But the first public interest to be considered is that of those requiring facilities for transport. With great respect to those who may think otherwise, I should think that there is no justification at all for saying that the public interest is any less to be considered—in fact, on the wording it is actually given more consideration than before.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Why change it?

Mr. Callaghan

I am sure we are grateful to the Attorney-General for coming here and offering an opinion on the matter with his usual lucidity. None of us would claim that we were right on matters of this sort. I cannot claim any legal experience, but I have a nodding acquaintance with the way these things have worked out so far. What would be interesting to have from the Attorney-General would be his view as to what practical difference the new words will make to the operation of the licensing system. I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us that and, as we are in Committee, I would gladly give way, either now or a little later, if he could give us an opinion on that point.

The Attorney-General

I am glad to point out that the wording it is proposed to adopt makes it quite clear that in considering the interests of the public the first thing to be considered is persons requiring facilities of transport and only secondly the interests of those providing transport whereas, originally, there was no priority assigned and, in fact, the priority was of a different character because it was primarily the public and then some unspecified interest.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I should like to follow this a little further with the Attorney-General. If it is his view that persons who require facilities shall have first priority and that those who are to provide facilities are to have second priority what about the rest of the public? As I understand the public they comprise not only those who provide and those who require facilities, but also another great body of persons concerned with such things as my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) referred to, considerations of road safety, capital investment, and so on. Where do they come into the picture?

The Attorney-General

I do not know what the consequences of this are, but I am telling the Committee what I believe to be the construction of it. They come in in "interests of the public generally," not primarily or secondly but, I presume, tertiarily.

Mr. Callaghan

I take it that tertiarily means "down the course" and that is exactly what we thought was the object. They are in the race; they are third and last—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

They get a prize anyway, for being third.

Mr. Callaghan

The Attorney-General has done a great service and we are obliged to him because he has elucidated what the Minister failed to elucidate, that the provision is being altered in such a way that the interests of the public as distinct from those who require transport shall be considered last.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan

If the Minister shakes his head at that it is clear that he was not listening to what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General said "tertiarily" and tertiarily, I understand, means thirdly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

What I shook my head at was the hon. Member trying to put in his own words what my hon. and learned Friend had said, with which, naturally, I am in agreement. In recapitulating what he claimed my hon. and learned Friend had said, the hon. Member claimed that he had spoken of providers of transport coming before those who need transport, but he never said anything of the sort. What he said was the public needing transport, then the providers and then other members of the public.

Mr. Callaghan

If I said that, I withdraw straightaway; that is not what I meant. As the Minister has put it—and I hope I have it right this time—those who need transport come first, those who provide transport second, and the public interest comes third.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan

There can be no other interpretation. The Minister still shakes his head, but I cannot think what for this time. It is clear from what he said that they are tertiary. They are third on the list and that is exactly the criticism we make of the Minister in this connection. It is, of course, in line with his Election promises because the Government promised that the interests of road hauliers should come first. We have always assumed that that was their case and there is no reason at all why that should be written into an Act of Parlia- ment, but it is a little naked to write it in this way. Nevertheless, we understand that if they wish to put the interests of road hauliers above the interests of the public—

Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe)

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I do not know whether the hon. Member has anything to contribute to the difficult and intricate point on which we are engaged, but if so, I will give way.

Mr. Fort

Surely the hon. Member is trying to make a distinction where no distinction exists, as between the interests of the consumer and of the public; the consumer interest is, in fact, also the public interest.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Callaghan

I must say that I do not think that the hon. Member's intervention betrays a proper degree of understanding of this problem. I will give an analogy. Supposing a farmer in an isolated farm—and this is an analogy, Sir Charles, in case you think I am getting out of order—feels that his farm needs to be connected with electricity. It is in his interest that it should be connected with electricity, but will it neccessarily be in the interests of the public generally? May there not be a distinction if it involves a great deal of capital investment in order to take the cable to the farm? Surely there is a substantial distinction.

I depart from the analogy and return to the particular matter with which we are concerned. There is a case in which the interests of the public generally may be different from the interests of the person who needs the transport and certainly different from the interests of those who provide the transport. The Attorney-General has stated quite clearly—and his first and brief intervention has been most illuminating—that the public interest generally comes third in this race. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last."]I wish to put it as politely as I can. My hon. Friends will insist on saying "last," but I think that prejudices the issue; it comes third out of three. I hope that is a satisfactory way of putting it. Indeed, that is what we should expect to find, and we are obliged to the Attorney-General for making it so clear.

The Attorney-General

May I make one point clear? The word "primarily" includes all those members of the public who require facilities for transport, ex hypothesi.

Mr. Callaghan

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to retreat from what he said.

The Attorney-General

No.

Mr. Callaghan

In that case, I have no more to say on the matter; the public interest comes third out of three.

The Minister made no case at all—if I may return to the Minister—for altering the substance of this Clause. What does he hope to achieve by it? As I understand, he hopes to secure an easier entry for road hauliers into the industry. That is his stated objective. May I put this to the Minister: in what way, excluding the period of nationalisation—because we are going back to the pre-nationalisation period now—have those who required transport not been able to secure it? Can the Minister give any illustrations of people who wanted transport and were unable to get it?

The Minister has no justification for altering the balance of equality between provider and consumer in order to tilt the balance on the side of the consumer. We should like to hear further from the Minister about this subsection so as to see what is his justification, but it is my own view that those who needed transport under the 1933 Act had it provided for them.

Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe pointed out, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, was designed to limit the entry of road hauliers into the industry. It was designed to restore the balance between the consumer and the public interest generally, on the one hand, and the road hauliers, who were tumbling over themselves on the road in an uncoordinated chaos which was of no general public benefit, on the other hand.

The Minister is returning once again to the position before 1933 in altering the substance of the wording in the Clause. We have heard that that is so, both in what he has said and in what the Attorney-General has said, although I am bound to say that such is the obscurity of this form of wording that persons, possibly not as well qualified to speak on these matters as the Attorney-General, but with long experience in administering the 1933 Act, have told me that in their view it will make precious little difference. It is not for me to adjudicate between the Attorney-General and those who administer the 1933 Act.

The Attorney-General

It is a question of law.

Mr. Callaghan

It is not for me to interpret the matter, but it is for the Minister to tell us whether it is his intention to make entry into road haulage easier. If it is, it will then be for the licensing authorities, as far as they can, to strain to accept his dictum and to try to secure easier entry into road haulage. I hope the Minister will tell us where the existing procedure fell short. I think he has a duty to tell us that before he asks us to change the system.

May I repeat a question asked previously from the benches behind me: have the licensing authorities made any representations to the Minister that the existing Act is difficult to administer and that they would like it changed because they feel they are unable to provide the facilities which the consumers of transport need? It is important that we should know whether the Minister has had any such representations, because if he has not, we can presumably deduce that the licensing authorities are not dissatisfied and that they can administer this Act in such a way as to give those who need transport the facilities they need—because that is one of the duties laid upon the licensing authorities. I do not know why the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should look so scornful. It is certainly one of the duties laid down that they shall ensure that those who need the facilities in fact get them.

Mr. Nabarro

The point is this: the perplexity of the statute as it exists is leading to inconsistencies, traffic court by traffic court, up and down the country, and it is, therefore, desirable that the position should be clarified.

Mr. Callaghan

If it were a fact that this form of wording simplified the task of the licensing authorities, then no doubt there would be validity in what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am advised on some authority that this will not make the job of the licensing authority easier; indeed, some say that it will make no difference except to make it easier to grant licences.

I do not know what the final result will be, and we shall have to wait to see; but nobody should consider that this change makes the situation any clearer from the point of view of consistency in the practice between one licensing authority and another. It will mean that the 12 licensing authorities will do what they have always done—make up their minds whether they think the facilities are needed and provide them where necessary.

Finally, in my opinion the Clause is not necessary to the Bill. It has nothing to do with the generality of the Bill—the disposal of road haulage vehicles. That could take place without Clause 8 being in the Bill at all. One of my hon. Friends intervened to say that this change at the moment of ownership seemed to give some undue advantage to road haulage. Whether that is true we do not know, but it is certainly unnecessary to the Bill. When we have a Guillotine procedure, why should the Minister endeavour to shove through this profound change—according to the Attorney-General that is what it is—in the licensing system, a change which places the public interest last?

The Attorney-General

I said nothing about anything profound. I leave that to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Callaghan

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for assuring us that he has said nothing profound. But he has told us that the public interest, which used to come first, is now to come third; and, to me at any rate, that is a profound change, because it represents a fundamental change in the balance which has existed under the Road and Rail Traffic Act since 1933.

There has been no inquiry into this matter. Certainly, there was not at the time I was at the Ministry of Transport, which, I admit, is three years ago; I heard no representations from the licensing authorities on this matter and I certainly heard of no case in which they felt they were unable to provide the facilities which were needed. What evidence has the Minister, and what representations has he received, which make him write into a Bill which we are considering under the difficulties of the Guillotine such a profound change—and I use the word "profound" on my own authority—in the licensing system which has existed for 20 years?

The Minister owes the Committee a fuller explanation than he gave us last time, and to enable us, in the half-hour that remains, to pass on to the other Amendments, I trust that he will give us that explanation.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am ready to speak again. I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is making very heavy weather of this case. I never quite know where he stands. This is an attempt to get greater freedom in the granting of licences. It is an attempt to get ordered freedom. At one and the same time the hon. Member tries to get the best of both worlds. He says to the Government, "Here you are, by this Bill, paying off your election debts to the Road Haulage Association." If those who are already hauliers have any vested interest, it surely is that they should be allowed to remain intact without competition in the service they are providing.

The next moment the hon. Member says, as now, "Here you are, anxious that the people should get more freely the licences they need." He cannot have it both ways. Surely the truth is that the statement that we are trying to satisfy election debts is grossly untrue. The claim that here, by this change in emphasis, we are carrying out a profound change of the law is also completely untrue. The hon. Member has developed the habit of following immediately someone who has spoken in the Committee and then trying to give what he recollects of the words used by the speaker preceeding him. He has misquoted either my right hon. and learned Friend or myself.

At no time have we stated that the public interest of those using transport is to come last. The people for whom there should be first consideration surely are the users of public transport, or the people who need it. By these proposals we have put them in the forefront of the considerations to which the licensing authorities must pay regard. Were the hon. Member responsible for any legislation I do not imagine that he, or his hon. Friends, would put any other body of people in front of those who need transport.

Surely they should be given the first priority. If, in fact, the hon. Gentleman, or any of his supporters, would like to put some large-scale commission ahead of the people who need transport, that goes a long way towards explaining the difficulties in which we find ourselves in the transport world, and from which this Bill is an attempt to release ourselves. We believe—

Mr. Mitchison

May I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves that point? He quite rightly describes this—I will not quote his exact words—as a very small change. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will confirm to him that there has never been a more muddled discussion in this Committee on any single subsection. I would like him to answer this question: why did he put this Clause into this Bill under the Guillotine when a Road Traffic Act is coming along?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Because it appears to us to be part and parcel of the general intention of the Government in this field to introduce a greater basis of competition and freedom, and as we think this is in regard to the whole of the activities of the Commission we feel we should provide facilities for the general liberalising of the granting of licences by this new emphasis and under this new order of priority.

It is our experience that conceivably the wording of the 1933 Act may have tended towards restricted administration of the licensing system in the interests rather of those who provide transport than of those who need it; and as our Bill is designed to be a realistic approach to the needs of the public, we think that this change of wording is desirable. Nothing which has been said has altered our view. If the discussion has taken a somewhat muddled form I would say it is only because it was started by an attempt to deal with the onus of proof which comes on a later Amendment, and on the question of charges, which really were not under discussion.

Mr. Mitchison

Surely, before he sits down the right hon. Gentleman should make clear his proposals in a matter of this sort. He should make them clear enough, not only for the benefit of the Committee but for the licensing authorities, to avoid this kind of confusion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have no doubt whatever that the licensing authorities who see the Bill, and who will see the Act, and whose duty it is to interpret the law—a duty they do admirably—will have no difficulty whatever in interpreting the law as it stands. I was asked if the licensing authorities had asked for this change, and I meant to deal with that point. So far as I know they did not. Nor have they protested at this change. I think they can be relied on to interpret the law in their own way and to carry out the law decided by this House.

Mr. Callaghan

I shall detain the Committee for but a moment. The Minister started off by saying that he places the interests of those who need transport first. He was going on to tell us whom he places second and third, but, perhaps because of interruptions, he never got as far as saying that. But I think I am right in saying that he places the interests of the providers of transport second, and the interests of the public generally, third.

No wonder we are getting muddled, because in this subsection there are three classes of persons stated; the general public, those who need transport, and those who want transport. There are three groups of persons clearly stated. The Attorney-General has told us what is his order. Is the order of the Minister different?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Gentleman attempts to suggest that a large body of the public have an interest in this field other than that of the public who need transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] In our view, the people who ought to be put first when we are legislating to provide transport facilities are those who need transport facilities.

So many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite are always dealing with a vast conglomeration, and when they come down to dealing with individual cases they show singularly little charity. They love the world as a whole, but they find hard to regard any individual member of it as a genuine and sincere person. They are more interested in the public in the abstract than in individual members of the public who need the service. It is our belief that the people who need the service are the public, for the purpose of the Transport Bill, and that they should come first. We believe that these words are actually what they want.

Mr. Callaghan

That really does illumine more clearly the difference in philosophy between the right hon. Gentleman and those of us who sit on this side of the Committee. It is intolerable, after all the years in which the hon. Gentleman has been in this House, that he should not recognise that there is such a thing as a general public interest; and that where he does recognise it he should place it below the interests of a particular section of the public. It is quite clear that he does so, and he cannot dispute it any longer. I think he does begin to recognise that there is such a thing as a general public interest—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

More of them voted for us last time.

Mr. Callaghan

The Minister is lucky. He will be saved by the Guillotine in 20 minutes' time, so that we cannot develop this as fully as we would like to. But there will be other occasions. So far as the number of votes that were cast is concerned, I believe it true to say that the Liberals are opposed to him on this matter, and the votes cast for them and for ourselves far out-number the votes cast for his party—

Mr. Holt

I do not wish the Committee to be under any misapprehension. I prefer the Government's subsection and their Amendment, although I would have preferred that we should not have wasted so much time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—in rambling discussions but had got on to later Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. Then we might have had a discussion which was worth while.

Mr. Callaghan

I do not think that the hon. Member meant "wasted" in any filibustering sense, because he knows that this has been a fundamental discussion.

The Minister told us, quite categorically, that he has had no representations from the licensing authorities on this matter. I am not surprised to hear it. I should have been surprised if there had been any. In other words, they have not felt it impossible to administer the Act as it stood before. It is clear that there has been no case which the Minister could quote to us in which the reasonable interests of providers of transport and users of transport could not be married together. Quite clearly this subsection should not be smuggled into a Bill of this sort under the Guillotine. It should have been discussed. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for promoting a discussion which has revealed clearly that in the mind of the Government the public interest comes below that of any section of the community. For that reason, we must oppose this provision.

Mr. Edward Davies

There has been a great deal of confusion in this debate. The Minister has said that the intention is to give more freedom to the A and B licence holders. But that is the inevitable consequence of this Clause—

Mr. Nabarro

Very satisfactory, too.

Mr. Davies

That is a view which may be held with sincerity by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but if the result is to get back to the conditions of anarchy which preceded the 1930 and 1933 legislation, that would be disastrous. The problem is that we have a large section of the transport industry under close regulation in terms of law and of charges, and on the other hand the Government are seeking to liberalise, or to give more freedom to, private enterprise in road haulage.

I prophesy that in the event this will prove an impossible proposition both for the traders and for the public. The problem with which the Commissioners were faced was to have regard to the existing facilities and not to overload the roads. They had to attempt to improve the bad conditions which were known to exist. They were certainly not called upon to have regard to charges.

I do not want to widen the discussion, but the Minister mentioned this question and I should like to pursue it before the Guillotine falls. Although he has spoken at length already, I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to say something about what is meant by this reference to charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) put before us the position that if the Commissioners have to have regard to charges it may mean that if an applicant can say that he can do a job at a cut price or a low rate compared with the existing charges—whether they be railway charges or those of some other firm—he will get the business.

The Chairman

Not only is the hon. Member out of order but he is, I think, outside the wishes of the Committee. I thought that the Committee did not wish to discuss charges.

Mr. Davies

The Minister made a great point of the fact that the Commissioners would have to have regard to charges.

The Chairman

The point was that the public generally would be considered in connection with charges and other matters. I understood that the Committee did not want to discuss charges in detail on this Amendment.

Mr. Davies

There is some confusion. Charges have been referred to and— The Chairman: They might be referred to, but I understood that the Committee did not want to discuss them in detail.

Mr. Davies

I do not propose to discuss them in detail. The important point is that on one side we have a system of regulated charges and on the other there will be this system. In many cases, the railways will be the objectors to the applications made before the Commission. They will argue that there are existing facilities and that it is in the public interest that they should be used. Then we are told that the Commission will have to have regard to charges. Surely that will lead to a rate-cutting war.

The sum and substance of the proposals of the Government are that, whatever the conditions of his employees and his undertaking, if a person can offer a cut-price then he will get the job. This will clutter up the roads and worsen the conditions of the employees. This will spell disaster for the industry generally.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr (Mitcham)

I wish to comment on one argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He tried to make a strong political point that the Government were putting the general public interest last. I must draw his attention to the wording of this Clause. He said that the Government recognised three interests—the general public interest, the interest of those requiring transport and the interest of those providing it. The Clause shows that one overriding interest is recognised. The words used are: shall have regard to the interests of the public generally … Clearly, that is the one overriding interest. The other interests are included within that one overriding interest. The Clause says: 'shall have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport.' To claim on that wording the party political point that the Government are deliberately putting the general public interest last is absolute nonsense. That claim is not supported by the wording of the Clause.

Mr. Irvine

I wish to underline the point that it is most undesirable that a change in the licensing laws should be slid into the Bill in this way. I regret that the Attorney-General has left us. I should have liked to emphasise this question in his presence. It is objectionable that this important change in the licensing laws should coincide with a change in ownership. It at once, for reasons that anyone would understand, raises doubts about the motives behind the whole business.

Let us consider a different type of licence—a licence for a public house in a new town. Let us suppose that in a provision giving to brewers the right to open licensed premises, there was slid into the Bill some provision altering the law governing that type of licence, enabling closing hours to be extended. In my submission, this is a parallel. Would it not at once follow, like night follows day, that hon. Members would say that the object and purpose was not because it was thought desirable to improve the general law in that respect but to give an advantage to the main beneficiaries in the other Clauses of the Measure?

I am only too willing to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but I must say that the conclusion I arrive at is that he has decided that a change in the licensing law is desirable in the interests of the purchasers of these assets. That is why this provision has been introduced. It is not because he regarded the existing licensing law as defective in any respect. That is the motive behind it. This is an extremely shoddy transaction.

Mr. Fort

The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has adduced yet another reason for attacking this provision which is essential to the Bill. He argued, as many other Members have done, by analogy. I want to try to bring home to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) what we mean by the coincidence of the public interest and the interest of the user. I want to quote an example from his own area. He will probably remember the Forrester case which attracted a good deal of interest in South Wales before the war.

Mr. Forrester and, I think, his relatives built up a haulage service to the villages in the valleys behind Cardiff. They brought goods into Cardiff. They built up a profitable business for themselves, and one which was greatly appreciated by the people of the villages in the valleys, but, when they came to have their licences renewed, the objectors—the railways—said that there were railway lines going up into these valleys, and the licensing authority refused to renew the licences. The result was that a business which had been very beneficial to those living in the villages had to come to an end. Was the public interest served by denying these villages a service which they had been enjoying while Mr. Forrester and his colleagues were able to operate their business, or not?

Mr. Callaghan

If it was not, the licensing authority clearly was not carrying out the task laid upon it by the Act, which laid it down that they were to have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally. I assume that the hon. Member will not deny that they were, when they made the decision, the details of which we do not know, having regard primarily to the interests of the public generally.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

If the hon. Member knew a little more about the Forrester case than he appears to know, and if he knew the roads over which these vehicles were travelling and the type of village which they were serving, he would clearly understand why it was that the licensing authority, on reflection, took the view they did about those vehicles.

Mr. Fort

But was not Mr. Forrester and his colleagues giving a service to those villages which satisfied the people living there?

Mr. Jones

I am afraid not, because there were, in fact, railway tracks, railway stations and railway goods yards equally accessible to those villages as this superimposed road haulage service.

One cannot help feeling—and I am sorry that the next two Amendments to lines 36 and 41 are not likely to be called, and that is why I sought to intervene now—that my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) was quite right in saying that a Clause of this kind written into the Bill must inevitably create suspicion. The Minister says that he has got a whole list of case law. Obviously, he has; he has got a whole list of case law under the 1930 Act, under which, on occasion, he has had to act in a judicial capacity. He had to set up the Thesiger Committee to examine the implications of that Act and report on what changes, if any, should take place.

Why is he treating the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act, which set out to do precisely the same kind of thing for road haulage as the 1930 Act did for road passengers, in an entirely different way? He has done it, I suggest, Because he wants to write into the Bill conditions so far as licensing is concerned which will make it comparatively easy for his friends in the Road Haulage Association, when they purchase the vehicles, to get the business. He may protest as much as he likes that he has no such intention, but he admits, for example, that there has been no demand from the licensing authorities, who are the people best able to judge. How can he judge, after some seven or eight months at the Ministry, that this kind of thing ought to be done? One cannot help feeling that the transfer of ownership of these vehicles is the main cause.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act also established a Transport Advisory Council, and it was an integral part of that Act that the Transport Advisory Council should report from time to time. That Council reported in 1939, and had something important to say about the competition going on between road and rail traffic. They said: If allowed to continue unchecked or uncontrolled, the evil results of this competition between road and rail will become more serious, and will not only adversely affect the financial stability of those who provide transport facilities, but will also hamper the development of trade and the economic progress of the nation. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be concerned about that, nor does he seem to be concerned about attempting to get order into the road transport industry. Nor, apparently, is he concerned, when he talks as glibly as he did a few moments ago, about hon. Members on this side being concerned about the larger number. Has he no concern about road safety? Are the Minister and his Department not concerned about the number of vehicles to be permitted on the roads of this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

That gives me the opportunity of saying this quite clearly. In my view, and I speak with some knowledge in this matter, though, I admit, no legal knowledge "having regard to the interests of the public primarily"—I do not want to read it all—means that if, in the view of the licensing authority, there was too much traffic operating on a road, they would take that into account first, and would then take into account primarily those requiring transport facilities, and the public interest in the district and the public need for transport are, in that form of words, wholly preserved.

Mr. Callaghan

I am quite ready to accept that, provided that the Minister recognises that he is now giving a completely different view to the learned Attorney-General.

Mr. Jones

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind what he does mean by this? He has been very busy all the afternoon and has gone to that Box three times and given three separate explanations of what this Clause means. He has already argued with some force and a good deal of eloquence that the people primarily concerned are the people who desire transport, but he does not lay down any qualifications about the type of road over which these vehicles have to travel, as a primary consideration. The hon. Member for Clitheroe has quoted a case in South Wales. but there are scores of similar cases all over the country, and, surely, even in the mind of a Tory Minister of Transport the safety of women and children on the roads ought to be the first consideration, particularly when there are other forms of transport available?

In any case, on the Minister's own admission, this is bound to mean more vehicles on the roads, and the greater the number of vehicles on the roads the greater will be the danger. One cannot help feeling that all these alterations, put into this Bill without either need or desire for them at all, are designed to make it far easier for the right hon. Gentleman's friends in the Road Haulage Association to get back into the business.

By the alteration of this Clause, the onus of proof is to be placed on the objector and not on the claimant, which does mean that the licensing authorities will be hamstrung by this form of words. All the experience which they have built up in the past will be of no avail in the future, because the Minister has seen to it that the words going into the new statute will be so tightly drawn that they will have to accede to what he wants.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

We have had some very exaggerated arguments on this Amendment, but I think the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. D. Jones) has passed the limit. We have heard the argument that we are giving way to selfish interests—

It being half-past Seven 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 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 255.

Division No. 37.]	AYES	[5.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hurd, A. R.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Donner, P. W.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Arbuthnot, John	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Jennings, R.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Drayson, G. B.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Baldwin, A. E.	Duthie, W. S.	Kaberry, D.
Banks, Col. C.	Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Barber, Anthony	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Barlow, Sir John	Erroll, F. J.	Lambert, Hon. G.
Baxter, A. B	Fell, A.	Lambton, Viscount
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Finlay, Graeme	Lancaster. Col. C. G.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Fisher, Nigel	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Leather, E. H. C.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Fort, R.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Foster, John	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lindsay, Martin
Bireh, Nigel	Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Linstead, H. N.
Bishop, F. P.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Llewellyn, D. T.
Black, C. W.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gammans, L. D.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Bossom, A. C.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Longden, Gilbert
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Low, A. R. W.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Braine, B. R.	Godber, J. B.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Gough, C. F. H.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Gower, H. R.	McAdden, S. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Graham, Sir Fergus	McCallum, Major D.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Grimond, J.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Bullard, D. G.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	McKibbin, A. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Harden, J. R. E	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Burden, F. F. A	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Maclean, Fitzroy
Butcher, H.W.	Harris, Frederio(Croydon, N.)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Campbell, Sir David	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Carr, Robert, (Mitcham)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Carson, Hon. E.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W.
Cary, Sir Robert	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Channon, H.	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Manningham-Butler. Sir R. E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Hay, John	Marlowe, A. A. H
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Maude, Angus
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Heath, Edward	Maudling, R.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Cole, Norman	Higgs, J. M. C.	Medlicott, Brig. F
Colegate, W. A.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Mellor, Sir John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount,	Molson, A. H. E.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hirst, Geoffrey	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hollis, M. C.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Cranborne, Viscount	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Crookshank, Capt. RI. Hon. H. F. C.	Holt, A. F.	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.	Hope, Lord John	Nicholls, Harman
Crouch, R. F.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth,E.)
Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)	Horobin, I. M.	Nield, Basil (chester)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Davidson, Viscountess	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Nutting, Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Oakshoft, H. D.
Deedes, W. F.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Tilney, John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Touche, Sir Gordon
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Turner, H. F. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Scott, R. Donald	Turton, R. H.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Osborne, C.	Shepherd, William	Vane, W. M. F.
Partridge, E.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Vosper, D. F.
Perkins, W. R. D.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Wade, D. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.	Snadden, W. McN.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Soames, Capt. C.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A	Spearman, A. C. M.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Powell, J. Enoch	Speir, R. M.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Stevens, G. P.	Watkinson H. A.
Profumo, J. D.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminister)
Raikes, H. V.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Webbe Sir H. (London &Westminster)
		White, Baker (Canterbury)
Rayner, Brig. R.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Redmayne, M.	Storey, S.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Remnant, Hon. P.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Robertson, Sir David	Studholme, H. G.	Wills, G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Summers, G. S.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Robson-Brown, W.	Sutcliffe, H.	Wood, Hon. R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)	York, C.
Roper, Sir Harold	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Teeling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Russell, R. S.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)	Mr. Drewe and
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Mr. Richard Thompson.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Adams, Richard	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hastings, S.
Albu, A. H.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hayman, F. H.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Herbison, Miss M.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hobson, C. R.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Deer, G.	Holman, P.
Awbery, S. S.	Delargy, H. J.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Dodds, N. N.	Houghton, Douglas
Balfour, A.	Donnelly, D. L.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bartley, P	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Beattie, J.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J	Edelman, M.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Bence, C. R.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Benn, Wedgwood	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Benson, G.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Beswick, F.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Janner, B.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Bing, G. H. C.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Jeger, George (Goole)
Blackburn, F.	Ewart, R.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Blenkinsop, A.	Fernyhough, E.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Blylon, W. R.	Field, W. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Boardman, H.	Fienburgh, W.	Jones, David (Hartlepool
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Finch, H. J.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bowden, H. W.	Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bowles, F. G.	Follick, M.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Foot, M. M.	Keenan, W.
Brockway, A. F.	Forman, J. C	Kenyon, C,
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Freeman, John (Watford)	King, Dr. H. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Kinley. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Burke, W. A.	Gibson, C. W.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Glanville, James	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Callaghan, L. J.	Gooch, E. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Carmichael, J.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Lewis, Arthur
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Lindgren, G. S.
Champion, A. J.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Chapman, W. D.	Grey, C. F.	Logan, D. G.
Chetwynd, G. R	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacColl, J. E.
Clunie, J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)	McGhee, H. G.
Coldrick, W.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	McInnes, J.
Collick, P. H.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	McLeavy, F.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Hamilton, W. W.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hardy, E. A.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Daines, P.	Hargreaves, A.	Mainwaring, W. H.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Procter, W. T.	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Pursey, Cmdr. H	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Manuel, A. C.	Rankin, John	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.	Reeves, J.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mellish, R. J.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Thornton, E.
Messer, F.	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Thurtle, Ernest
Mikardo, Ian	Rhodes, H.	Timmons, J.
Mitchison, G. R.	Richards, R.	Tomney, F.
Monslow, W.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Moody, A. S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Viant, S. P.
Morley, R.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Wallace, H. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Watkins, T. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Ross, William	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mort, D. L.	Royle, C	Weitzman, D.
Moyle, A.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mulley, F. W.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Murray, J. D.	Short, E. W.	West, D. G.
Nally, W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wheeldon, W. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
O'Brien, T.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Oldfield, W. H.	Slater, J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Oliver, G. H.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Wigg, George
Orbach, M.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Oswald, T.	Snow, J. W.	Willey, F. T.
Padley, W. E.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Williams, David (Neath)
Paget, R. T.	Sparks, J. A.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Steele, T.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Palmer, A. M. F.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Pannell, Charles	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Pargiter, G. A.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Paton, J.	Swingler, S. T.	Wyatt, W. L.
Pearson, A.	Sylvester, G. 0.	Yates, V. F.
Pearl, T. F.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Popplewell, E.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Porter, G.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Division No. 38.]	AYES	[7.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Fell, A.	Low, A. R. W.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Finlay, Graeme	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Fisher, Nigel	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Anstruther-Cray, 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)	McKibbin, A. J.
Baldwin, A. E.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Banks, Col. C.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Barber, Anthony	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Maclean, Fitzroy
Barlow, Sir John	Gammans, L. D.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Baxter, A. B.	Garner-Evans, E. H	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Godber, J. B.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Gough, C. F. H.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Gower, H R.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Maudling, R.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Grimond, J.	Medlicott, Brig. F
Birch, Nigel	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mellor, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.	Grimston, Sir Robert(Westbury)	Molson, A. H. E.
Black, C. W.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Boothby, R. J. G	Harden, J. R. E.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Bossom, A. C.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Braine, B. R.	Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)	Nicholls, Harmar
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow,E.)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Harvey-Watt, Sir George	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Hay, John	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Heath, Edward	Nugent, G. R. H.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Higgs, J. M. C.	Nutting, Anthony
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Oakshott, H. D.
Bullard, D. G.	Hinchingbrooke Viscount	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Burden, F. F. A.	Hollis, M.C.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Butcher, H. W.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Campbell, Sir David	Holt, A. F.	Osborne, C
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hope, Lord John	Partridge, E.
Carson, Hon. E.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Cary, Sir Robert	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Channon, H.	Horobin, I. M.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Peyton, J. W. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Howard, Gerald l(Cambridgeshire)	Pickthorn, K. W. M
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Cole, Norman	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Powell, J. Enoch
Colegate, W. A.	Hurd, A. R.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hutchison Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Cooper-Key. E. M.	Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)	profumo, J. D.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hyde, Lt,-Col. H. M.	Raikes, H. V.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hylton-Fester, H. B.H.	Rayner, Brig. R
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Remnant, Hon. P
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.	Jennings, R.	Renton, D. L. M.
Crouch, R. F.	Johnson, Erie (Blackley)	Robinson. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Robson-Brown, W.
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Kaberry, D.	Roper, Sir Harold
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Keeling, Sir Edward	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Davidson, Viscountess	Kerr, H. W. (Gambridge)	Russell, R. S.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Lambert, Hon. G.	Ryder, Capt R. E. D.
Deedes. W. F.	Lambton, Viscount	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Digby, S. Wingfield	Lancaster, Col. G. G.	Savoys, Rt. Hon. D.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Savery, Prof, Sir Douglas
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. k.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Donner, P. W.	Leather, E. H. C.	Scott, R. Donald
Doughty, C. J. A.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Scott-Miller. Cmdr. R.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Legh, P. R (Petersfield)	Shepherd, William
Drayson, G. B.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough. W.)
Drewe, C.	Lindsay, Martin	Smiles. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)	Linstead, H. N.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Llwellyn, D. T.	Snadden. W. McN.
Duthie, W. S.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Soames, Capt. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Lockwood, Lt,-Col. J. C.	Spearman. A. C. M
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E	Longden, Gilbert	Speir, R. M.
Erroll, F. J.		Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington. S.
Stevens, G. P.	Tilney, John	Watkinson, H. A.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Touche, Sir Gordon	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Turton, R. H.	white, Baker (Canterbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Tweedsmuir. Lady	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Storey, S.	Vane, W. M. F.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Vosper, D. F.	Wills, G.
Summers, G. S.	Wade, D. W.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Sutcliffe, H.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	Wood, Hon. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)	York, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon.	J. P. L. (Hereford)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon. W.)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)	Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayoe.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Lindgren, G. S.
Adams, Richard	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Albu, A. H.	Ewart, R.	Logan, D. G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Fernyhough, E	MacColl, J. E.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Fienburgh, W	McGhee, H. G.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Finch, H. J.	McInnes, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Awbery, S. S.	Follick, M.	McLeavy, F.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Foot, M. M.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Baird, J.	Forman, J. C.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Balfour, A.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Freeman, John (Watford)	Mainwaring, W. H.
Bartley, P.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Beattie, J.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Gibson, C. W.	Manuel, A. C.
Bence, C. R.	Glanville, James	Mayhew, C. P.
Benn, Wedgwood	Gooch, E. G.	Mellish, R. J.
Benson, G.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Mikardo, Ian
Beswick, F.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mitchison, G. R
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Monslow. W.
Bing, G. H. C.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Moody, A. S.
Blackburn, F.	Grey, C. F.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)	Morley, R.
Blyton, W. R.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Boardman, H.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Bowden, H. W.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mort, D. L.
Bowles, F. G.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Moyle, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Mulley, F. W.
Brockway, A. F.	Hamilton, W. W.	Murray, J. D.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hannan, W.	Nally, W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hardy, E. A.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hargreaves, A.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Oldfield, W. H.
Burke, W. A.	Hastings, S.	Oliver, G. H.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Hayman, F. H.	Orbach, M.
Callaghan, L. J.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Oswald, T.
Carmichael, J.	Herbison, Miss M.	Padley, W. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hobson, C. R.	Paget, R. T.
Champion, A.J.	Holman, P.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Chapman, W. D.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury).
Chetwynd, G. R.	Houghton, Douglas	Palmer, A. M. F.
Clunie, J.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Pannell, Charles
Coldrick, W.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	pargiter, G. A
Collick, P. H.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Parker, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Paton, J.
Cove, W. G.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Pearson, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Janner, B.	Peart, T. F.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Popplewell, E.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Porter, G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughten)
Daines, P.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Proctor, W. T.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Pursey, Cmdr. H
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke N.)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Rankin, John
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Reeves, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Keenan, W.	Rhodes, H.
Deer, G.	Kenyon, C.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Delargy, H. J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dodds, N. N.	King, Dr. H. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvenshire)
Donnelly, D. L.	Kinley, J.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Ross, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Edelman, M.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Short, E. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Lewis, Arthur	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)		Silverman, Julius (Erdingten)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Wheeldon, W. E.
Slater, J.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)	Wigg, George
Snow, J. W.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Thornton, E.	Wilkins, W. A.
Sparks, J. A.	Thurtle, Ernest	Willey, F. T.
Steele, T.	Timmons, J.	Williams, David (Neath)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Tomney, F.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Turner-Samuels, M.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Viant, S. P.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett	Watkins, T. E.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Swingler, S. T.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Sylvester, G. 0.	Weitzman, D.	Wyatt, W. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)	Yates, V. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wells, William (Walsall)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	West, D. G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven o'clock.