HC Deb 17 December 1952 vol 509 cc1470-511

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move, in page 28, line 23, at the end, to insert "or by road."

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has suggested that we have really been indulging in a process known as the MacNaghten Rules, under which, I understand, one can legally strangle or guillotine someone who is insane. Indeed, there seems to be something about the procedure which we have just been through which is vaguely reminiscent of that. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was very generous when he said that he estimated that three-quarters of the Committee did not know what was being done. I must say that had it been left to me, I would have put the proportion much higher.

I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee, Sir Charles, if we were to discuss with the Amendment I have moved the remaining Opposition Amendments to Clause 20.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan

That, I understand, is agreeable to the Government and to you, Sir Charles, and therefore we propose a debate which would range over the whole of the 14 or 15 Amendments to this Clause, which is again a sign of the times.

Broadly, we are concerned here with a Clause the purpose of which is to give traders the right to complain about railway charges if no alternative form of transport is available. It is thought that the railways have some monopoly or near monopoly and that traders should have the right of complaining to the Transport Tribunal about rates charged by the railways. The Tribunal are then authorised to make an order varying the charges which, presumably, would normally mean reducing them on the grounds, I suppose, that they are too high and that the railways are abusing their position.

This does not seem to me to be wrong, and I do not complain of that in any way. I think it is probably right that the consumer who feels that his weak position is being abused should have this right, and I would not dissent from that. But what I do ask the Minister—as I asked him on Clause 18—is that if this is good enough for members of the public who have to deal with the railways, why should not members of the public also have the same protection against road hauliers?

There is an old saying—I believe I am in order in using the word "goose"— which runs: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I really cannot understand why it should be thought that a member of the public who has the right to appeal to an independent tribunal against what is regarded as an excessive rate charged in monopolistic circumstances by the railways, should not also have the right to protest to the same sort of tribunal if he thinks that the road haulier with whom he may have to deal because he is the only haulier in the area running this service, is charging an excessive rate.

I really do not know why the Minister has not attempted to equalise these burdens unless it be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said earlier, that he has a predilection in favour of road hauliers as against railways. Of course he has, but we have said it so often that we are almost beginning to doubt it ourselves. We know that the whole basis of the Bill is to give preference to road hauliers as against the railways, and in the Clause as at present drafted the whole onus of proving that a rate is not excessive in monopolistic circumstances is placed upon the railways. There is absolutely no requirement at all upon a road haulier to justify his rates.

Our Amendments are intended to place similar obligations upon the road hauliers as the Minister is imposing upon the railways, or, if I may put it in another way, to give similar rights to members of the public in their dealings with road hauliers as are given to them in their dealings with the railways. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I take it, will reply to this debate, that he has to justify why he does not believe, if, indeed, he does not intend to accept our Amendments, in this particular approach.

This, in a way, is the touchstone of the Minister's sincerity. Either he should include the road hauliers in this Clause so that the same conditions are laid down for them, or he should delete the Clause so that the public have no protection against the railways. In one of his previous animadversions, the Minister told us that we always wanted to restrict people whereas he wanted to give them freedom. I offer him an option here, and I do not mind which way he does it. He can either give everyone the freedom to be exploited by railways and road hauliers alike, or he can give everyone protection and the right to complain about road hauliers and the railways. What it seems to me he cannot do if he wants to be equitable and fair is to give the public the right to complain about railway charges, but not against road haulage charges.

That seems to me to be a simple proposition clearly stated, and I must say, in logic, impeccable. But no doubt the Government will find some excuse for running away from it.

In some ways, this is not a new proposition. In 1937, the Transport Advisory Council had a lot to say about this particular matter. I am sorry the Minister is not here at the moment, although I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will report to him what I have to say on these particular matters. The 1937 Committee, the names of whose members I read out earlier, was concerned with the position in which the railways found themselves as the result of road competition. But it was also concerned with a second thing, and this is something which I find that hon. Members opposite do not always bring to the forefront of their arguments, even if they have it in mind. It is the duplication of road services, the uneconomic operation of road services, the fact that a great many road hauliers were not observing the legal conditions laid upon them by the 1933 Act, and the generally unsatisfactory nature of the road haulage industry as it existed in the thirties.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have this in mind when they applaud the merits of the Bill, which is designed to take us back to pre-1933 conditions. They should appreciate that part of the object of the exercise, of the 1933 Act was to regulate the road haulage industry because of the unsatisfactory condition into which it had fallen. My fundamental criticism of the Bill from this point of view is that it will fail even when the Government have it on the Statute Book because it takes no account of the unsatisfactory conditions which grew up in the industry—conditions which were gradually being ironed out, but to which the Government now propose to take us back. They propose to do that by splitting up these integrated road haulage services into tiny units.

The Bill would have had far more chance of succeeding had the Govern- ment accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I always thought that that was a good Amendment. I said so when it was before us. Had that been accepted, there might have been a good chance of making the Bill work. As it is, I see no escape from chaos in the road haulage industry and a return to the conditions from which the Transport Advisory Council of 1937 attempted to rescue not merely the railways but also the Toad haulage industry. This is the case which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), although he answers many questions, has not yet answered. I invite him to do so some time.

Mr. Powell

I will.

Mr. Callaghan

We have had many debates on this issue, and I have never yet had a satisfactory reply. Indeed, I do not know that there is one. I fear very much—and this is not at all a debating point—for the future of the road haulage industry. I do not believe that the Minister, in his proposals, has assimilated the lessons which should have been learned by any Minister before he embarked on legislation in this field as a result of the experience of everybody in this industry in the twenties and the thirties.

The Transport Advisory Council said: we recognise that … the industry has always found it exceedingly difficult to create a satisfactory organisation owing to the fact that it is divided into such a large number of separate units. That was one of their criticisms of the industry as it then existed. They said that it was impossible to achieve a proper organisation because the very small men who hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite worship, and into whose hands they now wish to give this industry, were such an anarchistic, individualistic bunch of chaps. They were obviously concerned, each of them, with making as much profit as they could on their own lorries. They were not in business for their health. They were in it to make a living. The fact that they were operating a transport business was a secondary objective to them. Their main objective was to make a living.

It is because that was their approach that the Transport Advisory Council complained that the existence of this large number of small men made a proper organisation of the industry unsatisfactory. They said that in their view there should be appropriate rates for the industry. Their words were: We hold that all forms of transport should, where practicable, be rate-controlled with publication and non-discrimination, in order to ensure a fair basis of competition.… 7.15 p.m.

Do hon. Gentlemen opposite dissent from that? They do by their actions although they may not by their words. The object of this series of Amendments is to try to secure at least some degree of equal competition as between rail and road in this matter. My special complaint, among many others, about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that even though they mouth the words, "We believe in fair competition," in practice they do not carry them out.

As this Clause is drafted there is not the slightest doubt that the Government are pulling down the balance on the side of road haulage. The Transport Advisory Council recommended that there should be national rates fixed by the road haulage industry itself. If the industry could not fix them then there were to be statutory area rates committees, consisting of representatives of the industry whose job it should be to agree rates for their own areas. In view of the very wide field to be covered, it was suggested that there should be area rates officers, whose areas should correspond with those of the existing Traffic Commissioners, to be appointed by the Minister of Transport.

The object was to try to secure a national road haulage system of rates because of the chaos in which the industry had fallen as a result of an unco-ordinated and anarchistic rate structure previously. Where, in this Bill, is there to be found any recognition of the experiences which led the Advisory Council to make those recommendations? There is nothing to be found. Nothing is found because the history of the last few years following upon nationalisation and the creation, in fact, if not in theory, of a national rate structure has permitted small traders, has permitted hon. Gentlemen opposite and the industry to forget what they were putting up with in the 'thirties.

This is the lesson which trade and industry and hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to learn again in the 'fifties because of the procedure they are adopting in this Bill. It was Henry Ford who said that history is bunk. It is the Conservatives who believe what he had to say. That is why this Bill is foredoomed to failure. I could go into this question at great length. I do not intend to do so now except to draw the general conclusion that it was the view of the Transport Advisory Council that the sort of set-up envisaged in this Bill was foredoomed to failure, and that we must have a degree of regulation in the industry which is not obvious from the Bill. It does not exist in the Bill and it has not been put into any of the statements made by the Minister.

As late as 1946 the road hauliers sent a memorandum to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in which they said that they were ready to formulate a national rate structure. I do not know whether that was because they were in fear of nationalisation and thought that if they could agree a rate structure that would be published without any undue discrimination or preference, it would be better for them. Perhaps it was a case of: The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be; But after the war they were still ready to create a national rate structure. There is nothing in this Clause or in the Bill which will bear any examination on the question of the creation of such a rate structure. Has the Parliamentary Secretary approached the road hauliers to see whether they intend that there shall be any national system of road haulage rates? Has he or the Minister asked them that? Does he know what their intentions are? I cannot believe that they are light-hearted about this.

Many of the older men in the industry will remember what happened in the past; indeed, that is why we are now seeing articles in some of the technical journals about better nationalisation than some Members of the Government will visit upon us. They will remember, even if the Government have forgotten, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought, for the sake of the future of the industry and for the sake of all the road hauliers themselves, many of whom are small men, to tell the Committee whether he has made any approaches to the road hauliers to see whether he can get them together—this notably anarchistic industry—to agree on a road haulage rate structure or on an area rate system, and whether they want to do anything of this sort themselves, because they will be driven to it if they are not ready to do it now.

I would like to offer the Government a piece of advice, though I do not suppose they will take it. If they want to provide a decent service, let them get ahead as quickly as they get the lorries with the creation of such a national system of rates that will be available throughout the whole industry and throughout the country, and get some order into it, not only for the sake of the industry, but for the sake of the workers employed in road haulage.

In conclusion, I say that the enormity of the Government's offence in this particular matter can be construed when we read the chapter on charges on page 76 of the Annual Report of the Transport Commission, which is headed "Goods Charges Scheme." The Commission had secured—I am not now quoting the Report—the assent of the Minister to the preparation of goods charges schemes for this purpose nationally, and they would have been put into operation but for the fact that the previous Minister of Transport gave a two years' extension, which enabled further consultations to take place between the Commission, coastal shipping and the Traders' Co-ordinating Committee. This is what the Report says: A large measure of agreement was reached, but in view of the statement on policy made by the Government the Commission decided to defer the submission of a draft scheme. The Traders' Co-ordinating Committee concurred in this conclusion and the Minister released the Commission from their assurance. There is the end, the death, of a national charges scheme for road haulage, in a decision taken by the Government themselves as a result of the folly of their own Election pledges. They are taking this industry back, dragging it through the chaos that it went through in the 'thirties, because they have not got the wit to learn from the past.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

Sometimes, when listening to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I regretfully come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to have a meeting of minds in the House of Commons at all. The hon. Gentleman's conception of what the result of the Bill will be is so alien to anything that we on this side envisage as to form no real basis of argument.

The hon. Gentleman said that we regard history as bunk. We do not at all. We regard history as history, as recording accurately the facts of the time. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he thinks that history is what is taking place at the present time. He is trying to introduce into the Committee an atmosphere suggesting absolute chaos on the roads, a situation in which road hauliers are going out of business because there are insufficient goods to carry. He tried to recapitulate in modern terms the worst excesses of what took place in the 'thirties.

What is the use of bringing into the Committee a report from 1937? This Bill is not designed either to create or correct the circumstances that existed in 1937. It is designed to correct the grave deficiencies and inconsistencies of the present day. We make no apology at all for helping the road hauliers. That is the purpose of this Clause, because since the war, and after six years of Socialism, as a result of the monopoly powers of the Transport Commission, we have reached a situation in which, unless some protection is offered to the traders, the Commission are likely to gain their ends for themselves. Our conception of the situation which must be remedied is so completely alien to anything that the hon. Gentleman said that there is really very little upon which we can meet.

I cannot understand what it is that the hon. Gentleman fears. The situation today is not that there are myriads of small hauliers rushing about the roads, in and out of yards, competing violently and in an internecine way with each other, going home to their wives every night, showing a few shillings and saying, "I do not know how we are going on, because Tom Smith and his racket were at it today." That is not the situation.

Today, after six years of monopoly, there is an insufficient number of these small units. This situation is the result of the Socialist Party's legislation. Thousands of small hauliers have been pushed off the main roads and confined to a 25-mile limit, and they cannot move. The situation is not one of great chaos and activity and internecine struggle. It is entirely different. We are providing, not for a plethora, but for a vacuum. The Clause we are discussing now is in exact conformity with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to release the road hauliers from the stranglehold which the previous Government's legislation has put upon them, to enable them to compete effectively, and to secure protection from a Commission which will still be a quasi-monopoly even after the Bill is passed.

That being so, we on this side warmly congratulate the Government on this Clause, because we think that some additional protection will continue to be necessary for some time for these road hauliers.

Mr. Sparks

The remarks of the noble Lord are directed to the road hauliers, but there is nothing in Clause 20 about road hauliers. It deals with the position of traders.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

That is quite right protection for traders against unreasonable and unfair charges which they may have to meet. If the Commission, through its railway service, puts on an unfair charge, then a trader can appeal against it. I am referring to that.

We are trying to set up a system in which there will be an immense number of alternative choices available to the trader. If a road haulier in his district quotes a price which the trader finds disadvantageous to him and likely to drive him out of business because of exceptionally high transport charges which he is having to pay, all he has to do is to walk into the next street and find another who will take his goods for the charges that he is prepared to pay. If, in any particular locality, all the hauliers gang up against a particular trader and refuse to take his consignments of goods, he is at liberty to telephone across the country, even for 200 miles, and secure a road haulier who will do so.

That is not the case with the railways. Admittedly, we are to have a variety of charges on the railways, and I hope there will be some competition between the regions in the railways on charges, so that, if a trader finds that one railway system, shall we say—it is not so easy in the North, but in the South—will not take his goods at the price he wants to pay, he can go to another which covers the same sort of territory and from which he can secure some benefit.

Mr. Callaghan

This Clause deals with appeals by traders where the railways have a monopoly. We are trying to put into the Clause a provision that a trader shall also have the right to appeal against a road haulier where the haulier has a monopoly. There may well be many small towns where there is one haulier who has virtually a monopoly. What does the noble Lord find objectionable in that?

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I cannot imagine a place, unless it is a very tiny village, where a road haulier has a monopoly. Are we to say that all this process for which the Clause provides—appealing to the Tribunal, the Tribunal having to require a particular road haulier in a certain village to substantiate his charges, having to secure publication and all the rest of it shall be carried out in a case like that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That is fantastic.

We had a debate last week about the quality and the ability of the members of the Tribunal. It was represented on the other side of the Committee that these people were very eminent personages, sitting in a lofty,place and with a great deal to do. Are we really to suppose that, as required by this Amendment, they will have the time to waste drawing up a whole series of amending instructions for a small haulier in a village in the South-West of England? I cannot conceive of it for a moment.

Mr. Mitchison

Would the noble Lord bear in mind the one question that the Tribunal will have to consider? They can only act if they are convinced that the charge complained of is unreasonable or unfair. That is the only thing which they have to decide, and, having decided it, they are not tied to making out a list of alternative charges or anything of the sort. What action they take is left entirely to them. What is difficult, unreasonable or unjust in that?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

The first objectionable thing in it that I see is that if the Clause were passed in the form required by the party opposite and it got about to people in the country that they could do this thing, the Tribunal would be plagued with inquiries from all parts of the country. Just as Members of Parliament receive letters complaining of this and that in their villages, this body of eminent gentlemen would be plagued with thousands of letters from people saying, "Our local road haulier will not do this. Will you establish an inquiry and make an order?" I cannot believe that the House of Commons would ever agree to administrative machinery being attached to the Tribunal requiring its members to do that.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

Does the noble Lord recognise that early in the debate he and the Minister laid very great emphasis on the fact that the needs of the user or consumer of transport must be met first of all? Apparently the noble Lord now objects to the consumer of transport having any protection at all against the road haulage concerns who can charge anything they like.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

The protection that they have is a free economy in transport on the road. That is what we are trying to establish. I cannot believe that the answer that I was giving just now to the question put to me described what, in fact, would take place.

What would take place is that, rather than the Tribunal being plagued, people would feel absolutely at liberty—as I was saying at the beginning of my remarks—to choose a road haulier from another locality if they were not satisfied with the prices charged and the ability of the local road haulier to move their goods. If they could not do it in a small village, say at "Much Binding in the Marsh," they would go to Chipping Norton, a town 15 miles away. If it could not be done there they could telephone to any place in England, give the destination of their goods, and find out whether another haulier could do the work. The purpose of this Amendment is wholly ill-founded and wrong. Even on the concluding stages of this Bill let us in this Committee try to move in a world of reality in transport and not in that fanciful world of supposed chaos that existed before 1947.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I hope that the Committee will forgive me for rising for a short time to ask some questions about the matter now before us. I confess to being one of those who are not technical experts on transport charges, and I think that it would be agreed that this matter has been difficult to follow today in the extremely short time left for discussion and for the Minister to explain the rather substantial alterations in the Bill as it is now before us.

I was interested in one point made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). If it is the case that if a trader could find a road haulier as far away as 200 miles to lift his merchandise he would be free to do so and, therefore, there would be no local monopoly in road transport, that, also, would apply to the railway. Under the provisions of this Clause the Transport Tribunal has to consider whether merchandise and goods can be reasonably carried by any means of transport other than the railway.

If the noble Lord is right, that apparently does not mean cases where there is no local road haulier in the district who is willing to take the load. As I understand the noble Lord, the Transport Tribunal will only say that the railway has a monopoly if there is no road haulier practically in the whole of England who will come forward and lift the goods. The Clause then, can only apply to certain classes of goods that are unsuitable to be carried by road. If that is the true construction of the Clause it can only apply to a comparatively limited class of goods. That makes me wonder whether the Clause is essential to the Bill at all, and whether we should not take the first alternative to his Amendment which was offered by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which was to delete the Clause entirely.

But there is a further question. On an earlier stage of the Bill we were told that there would be considerable elbow room, as I think it was described, left to the different regions or companies to fix their own rates. As I understood it, it was the intention of the Government that there. should be differences in rates and a certain amount of play under the proposed overall financial responsibility of the Commission, between different parts of the country.

I take it that that must mean, and it was certainly intended to mean in the context in which it was said, that in Scotland, for instance, the Committee might reduce rates in certain parts below the economic cost. That was certainly what I understood from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), when he said that considerable elbow room would be left for experiments and that the recommendations of the Cameron Committee on tapering charges would be taken into account.

If that is the case, then, under this Clause, is a trader in another area entitled to come forward and say, "But for this type of goods, lower charges are made elsewhere compared with my own district and this is a matter which the Tribunal must consider and must conclude that it is unfair"? If that is so it limits the power of the region to alter rates one against the other. Further, there may well come a time when, from the point of view of the economy as a whole, it might be desired that different rates should be charged in different parts of the country where one might wish to direct industry.

In my country, in the Highlands, there is considerable agitation for some form of assistance. We are quite open about it: the assistance, direct or indirect, we believe, must come from the Government. If that is agreed as a possibility, is it also agreed that the Government may step in and direct a lowering of rates for the specific purpose of developing or helping a particular area? In that case, I take it that it will not be open to the traders in other parts of the country to come forward and say that they, in their districts, are being unfairly treated.

Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South)

I listened with very great care to the arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who moved the Amendment, and really, some of the expressions he saw fit to use about small road hauliers, I am sure, not only will not please them but did not please us on this side of the Committee. Why we should take one section of the population, the road hauliers, and class them as anarchists, either in 1937 or 1952, I entirely fail to see.

Mr. D. Jones

Some of them.

Mr. Cole

We consider that this haulage industry is made up of small men—not anarchists but individuals—the sort of people who made this country as great as it is; and they are not the sort of people to be anarchists, as the Opposition sought to make them out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Speaking from this side of the Committee I desire—and I have no interest to declare—strongly to deprecate the use of such terms as have been used by the Opposition about these people.

I very much hope, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, that we shall see, when this industry is back in the hands of these same so-called anarchists, competition on our roads, and that will be of far greater benefit to the traders who want transport than the heavy, large caucus we have at the present time.

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with all due respect to him, that this Clause does not cover differentiation between one area of the country and another. It is for the Tribunal to deal with an appeal when a monopoly is supposed to exist on the railways. Then a person can appeal, to see if the right rates are being charged, or whether the railway is making the most of its monopolistic opportunities. There are two stages under this Clause. In the first, the Tribunal has to see if there is a monopoly, and can call for a statement of the charges. In the second it can go on to adjudicate on the charges, as to whether they are fair.

7.45 p.m.

I want us to get away from the rather airy-fairy picture that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East painted. I am sure hon. Members will realise that there really is no comparison between a haulier with one or two lorries and the whole set-up of British Railways, as they are, or even as they will be in the future. It is not true to say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Anyone acquainted with village or small town life knows that, if there were only one haulier in a village or town of 1,100 inhabitants, and he were to overcharge them in his haulage rates, his life would not be worth living for five minutes after it was known that he was acting as a monopolist and charging impossibly righ rates. The complaints can be taken directly to him, and there is all the difference in the world between complaints being made like that and being made by the long procedure that exists for making complaints against the railways.

I do ask hon. Members opposite not to try for political purposes to be too specious about this or any other Clause. Let us try to get down to something definite. Let us, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South said, be realistic about it. We know the set-up that there is on the railways. We know there is that remote control that at all times must exist to some extent on the railways. It is especially so at the present time with non-de-centralisation. That is an entirely different situation from that in which a small haulier operates. Moreover, I am sure that there are very few towns or villages in this country where there are not at least two hauliers in strong competition with each other. I am sure that is the case. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East is back in his seat. I have been talking about him and I may have to do so again.

Mr. Callaghan

I apologise for not having been here to hear the hon. Gentleman. I was not being discourteous. There are calls that are made upon one.

Mr. Cole

I quite understand, and I am not complaining. I want to lay this illusion that seems to exist amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no comparison really—no comparison at all—between the panoply and might of British Railways and the small haulier, though one can take complaints to either.

There is something else I should like to suggest for the consideration of hon. Members. If it were possible to have the procedure that hon. Members want in respect of the hauliers there might be a whole spate of complaints which, in many cases, would be unjustified. There might be complaints merely because they were possible under the Clause, and many of them would not be justified.

Mr. Callaghan

A lawyers' holiday?

Mr. Cole

I want to come to this point. With the regionalisation of the railways that we hope to see, there is to be the publication of maximum charges, so that they may be known, and to some extent they can be under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; but that would be quite impossible in the case of that large number of road haulage units that, I hope, we shall see in this country again. I am one of those who want to see a large number of haulage firms up and down the country.

It would be quite impossible to operate a plan throughout the country of charges for their various operations. We all know in all parts of the Committee, from personal experience, the difference there is between a man with 20 or 30 lorries and a man who has one or two. There is a difference in the assiduity of the man with two lorries and the firm with 20 or 30. Their rates vary, and that, is right and proper in private enterprise.

I have no very strong views on why this Clause should be in the Bill, because I believe the railways will give a fair deal. It is common ground between the two sides of the Committee that we should have decentralisation of the railways. This Bill will give that to the railway system of this country. I do not believe that these areas, the general managers or boards or executives who are responsible for the various areas, will immediately, on having the regionalisation system, start using the sort of practice envisaged in this Clause by way of monopoly.

I hope and I believe that actually the use of this Clause will be nil—that it will not be necessary. I believe that the railways will give a fair deal to the public as they have done in the past, and as they did before nationalisation, and as they can still do under nationalisation. For all these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendments.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

We have just heard two speeches from the other side of the Committee which struck me as being typical of the way in which the Bill has been presented to the House and to the Committee. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has painted a touching picture of the road hauliers as a noble band of men who brought the nation to its present prosperity. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked us to face the realities of the modern transport position, which, presumably, he thought embodied in this Bill.

The hon. Members seem to forget, though there was once something said about history being bunk, that there are lessons to be learned from history, and that this noble band of merchant venturers on the roads did not prove such a great contribution to our transport prosperity when they had the opportunities which it is now proposed to give them again. Indeed, it is precisely because of the chaotic situation that they created on the roads—and I do not blame them individually for it; it happens to be inevitable in the kind of situation which this Bill is seeking to create, and of which we have already had experience —that the Royal Commission's inquiries took so many months—years, in fact.

When the noble Lord speaks about the realities of the transport situation, is he forgetting that it was to solve the same kind of problem that Royal Commissions sat? The last Royal Commission, which was appointed in 1930, studied all the evidence they could get, invited evidence from road hauliers, railway authorities, trade unions, traders and other sections of the population, weighed up that evidence, pondered it in the light of the lessons of history, and, after 12 months of ardent work and study, produced something which at least enabled the transport industry to escape from many of the difficulties under which it had existed in the past.

What are the realities that we now have in this Bill? The Bill, as the Government know, is the child of a White Paper produced hurriedly in the light of Election promises, which was as hurriedly withdrawn when it was torn to pieces by every expert in the country, which was replaced by a Bill hurriedly drawn up to try to overcome some of the faults of the White Paper, which, again, was equally rapidly withdrawn as being completely unworkable. But this Bill has had even less attention than the White Paper and the two previous Bills.

Mr. G. Wilson

Could the hon. Gentleman explain his historical point a bit further? I understand that he is alleging that there was a good deal of difficulty on the roads in the early days of the development of transport. That is common knowledge. The Government are proposing to do nothing which would do away with the licensing authority, which was the outcome of an earlier Act.

Mr. Hynd

True, the licensing authorities are not being abolished, but their powers are being so restricted that we shall have an entirely different situation. Surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide free competition on the roads, to provide that large numbers of vehicles shall be sold off, and that there will be less supervision than at present. It is the Government's purpose—if it is not I misunderstand the whole purport of their argument-to get back to the era of free competition on the roads.

I consider that this and the following Clause are two of the most dangerous Clauses in the Bill. What do they propose to do? They propose to put the railways, which have hitherto suffered great disadvantages and disabilities compared with road hauliers, between the upper and nether millstones of Clauses 20 and 21. They are not to be allowed to charge less than a 'reasonable rate, or what is considered a reasonable rate, because the road hauliers will object. They are not to be allowed to charge more than a reasonable rate for certain traffic in case the customer objects.

The noble Lord drew a picture of the terrible calamity that would ensue if the railways were given similar facilities of appealing against road hauliers charges. He said that Members of Parliament would be bombarded with thousands of letters from constituents throughout the country asking for inquiries to be made into this or that parcel that they wanted carried by road, and he did not see that this would achieve anything at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hynd

No, the noble Lord may not. I am sorry, but I tried to put a simple and polite question to the noble Lord when he was speaking and was refused that facility. A rather strange thing in Committee; but if that is the position, so be it.

If the inclusion of the same facilities for railways were likely to lead to these calamitous consequences, then why include this provision for the road hauliers or their customers? Surely that means that we shall be bombarded with thousands of letters, asking for inquiries to be made.

The basis of the whole principle embodied in these two Clauses is to destroy the whole conception of charges upon which the railways have been built up; a conception of charges which has made it possible for essential traffic which cannot afford to pay anything like an economic rate to be carried about the country, and thus contribute to our basic prosperity.

What will be the position if these two Clauses are carried? Clause 20 provides only for traffic which cannot reasonably be shown susceptible of transport by other means. That is precisely the kind of traffic that road haulage cannot touch, or will not touch because it will not pay a profit. Obviously, the private road haulier is out to make a profit on every load if he can possibly manage it. Only that kind of traffic is to be susceptible of treatment under Clause 20. If the railway companies propose to charge more for it than appears to be reasonable, then there is an appeal to the Tribunal.

Under Clause 21, if the railway companies try to place a slight extra charge on some particular traffic the road haulier can appeal. The effect of this must be that, what is at present considered uneconomic traffic will either not be carried by the railways, or if the railways are to have to carry that traffic it will have to bear a charge far and above anything it has had to bear before, because, under the Clause, the railways cannot make up for uneconomic traffic by a little extra charge on other goods.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that this could also extend the problems of the areas. This is an attempt to destroy the whole structure of rates upon which the railways have been built up in the past. Anyone who believes that a railway system can be run as an economic proposition on the basis of cost plus profit is entirely mistaken, on the evidence of rail history as we know it, in this country or any other.

But that is what these two Clauses propose to do, in my opinion, and I hope that if the Minister cannot withdraw Clause 20 he will have another look at it, and also at Clause 21. I hope that, in the end, he will be able to withdraw both of them.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

I do not propose to following the argument of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) because I understood the Minister to say at an earlier stage that he would have another look at Clause 21. It may well be that one side of the millstone of which the hon. Member spoke will be withdrawn altogether.

I have been a little mystified by the discussion on this Clause, which provides for the protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment from rail charges where the railways have a monopoly. I was, however, struck by the fact that most of the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was directed, not to the protection of the trader, but to the protection of the road haulier. He was worried that the throats of road hauliers would be cut and the roads run with their blood.

This Clause, of course, has a totally different purpose. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should now be rushing to the assistance of the road hauliers, and, indeed, urging them to form a sort of cartel, and then come along with Amendments and say that once the cartel is formed, once there is a monopoly, the public must have a right to appeal against them. What an extraordinary state of affairs. That certainly seemed to be the course of his argument.

8.0 p.m.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that we were on a narrow point. We may be, but, nevertheless, it is an important one. It may be that the railways will never use their monopolistic power in this way, but that is no reason for not putting this Clause into the Bill. They are far less likely to use it if the Clause goes into the Bill, and that is the purpose of putting it into the Bill. I think, Mr. Thomas, that this discussion would really be more appropriate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and before you call me to order I should like to deal with the Amendments which are before the Committee.

I have some sympathy with the reason for putting down these Amendments, although I would suggest that they are based on the present situation and not on the situation which is likely to arise later. I cannot speak as an expert on haulage or on transport in general, but only from the experience which I have gathered in my own constituency. I find there, for example, that the rate for the carriage of groceries from Glasgow to Dumfries before nationalisation was 2s. or 2s. 1d., and that the rate for the carriage of the same quantity of groceries between those two places is now 4s. 8d. If that were the situation which we would have to expect after this Bill goes through, it would, of course, be necessary to introduce some such protection for the public; but that is exactly what this Bill aims to stop. Therefore, I very much doubt whether such protection would be required at all.

There is, of course, a very obvious distinction between road and rail. If, as I envisage in this particular Clause, the goods in question can only reasonably be carried by railway, then there is no means of applying to a licensing authority for another railway; but in so far as goods are carried by road surely a number of different opportunities are open. One can even put a vehicle on the road oneself, or encourage someone else to do so.

If we are being held up by a monopolistic rate on the roads, there are many ways in which we can deal with that situation. There is always the sanction—the threat of competition that may arise. In any case, I would add that traders are a good deal more wary now than they were in the 1930's. They will not be so ready to break a contract at present existing for the carriage of their goods in order to accept a lower tender, if they think that tender will lead to a monopoly which will subsequently hold them up to ransom. We have been talking about the lessons of the war. Surely they can be shared. That is one of the things which is likely to arise and to be used to the profit of traders in general.

It was said by the hon. Member for Attercliffe that the main purpose of someone engaging in road haulage was to make a living. He seemed to think that there was something wrong about that. If the main purpose of operating in road haulage were to make a fortune, there might be something to be said for this Amendment. But the main purpose of the small operator is to make a living, and it is that which he will seek to do. We believe that the provisions of the Bill, together with the operation of thelicensing authorities, will enable that to be done without the need for such fancy procedure as is required under this Amendment.

It may be said, "Oh, but it is the case of the small village, where there may be only one lorry and one operator, which we seek to protect." What does this Amendment do? It having been laid down that the matter is to be taken to the Tribunal, the Amendment says what the Tribunal has to do. What has it to do—withdraw the licence for that one lorry—according to the Amendment on the Order Paper? This is a most fantastic series of Amendments, and I hope that the House will reject them without qualification.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire. South-East)

It seems to me that some of the lessons of history which hon. Members opposite have drawn are a complete misreading of history as I know it, have observed it and read of it. Surely it is the case with the past history of the road transport industry—as is the case with all capitalist undertakings—that first they start under conditions of competition and shortly a situation is reached where competition ceases and we enter into the field of monopoly. This has happened throughout the whole of our industrial history.

I think that is bound to happen again if this Bill becomes law and is operated. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are talking in terms of little village hauliers, operating without any regard to the fact that inevitably we shall see the small hauliers revolting against this competition, if it is of a really cut-throat character, and eventually they will do what all capitalists tend to do—get together to prevent a monopoly operating against them. We saw something of this in pre-war days.

The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who has now left the Chamber, talked about the conditions which would be established immediately after this Bill has been passed, and apparently lasting for ever. He was, I think, talking complete nonsense. In fact in pre-war days, we saw even in the road freight industry—large firms were beginning to operate and the smaller hauliers were being swallowed up, and we were in the process of normal capitalist development which I say we shall inevitably see again if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

In 1938, 23.3 per cent. of the A and B vehicles were owned by fewer than 140 firms. In those conditions, we were rapidly approaching a state where the big fish were swallowing up the small fish. Inevitably, no matter what we say in this Bill about breaking the road haulage undertaking into operable units, we shall see conditions existing shortly in which that sort of thing will be operating again. In pre-war days, no fewer than 19 of the larger firms had a total of £52½ million invested in the firms which they were in fact operating.

Under those conditions we may see and I think it will be inevitable, particularly on the cross-country runs —conditions in which the user of that sort of transport would have a justifiable complaint against what the tribunal would call a monopoly condition. In those conditions, it would be surely right that there should be applied to the road haulage undertaking exactly the same conditions that we are by this Clause applying to rail transport.

What we on this side of the Committee are seeking to do by this series of Amendments is to have applied to road haulage—and please forget the small village haulier—the same right of an aggrieved user to go to a tribunal and appeal against a decision which may be one in which he is being charged rates against which he will have a fair and justifiable complaint. If these conditions are to be applied to the nationally-owned rail undertaking, let us apply similar conditions to the road hauliers who will be set up as the result of the Bill.

As I understand what the Minister has been trying to do and has talked about all through, it is the creation of conditions in which we shall have equality of competition and competitive opportunities as between one section of the industry and another. It is nonsense to talk in those terms when, in the first place, we have no equality of obligation. Neither can there be perfect equality between the two in circumstances in which we have no equality of track costs. Two of the three matters in which there ought to be equality of obligation are immediately ruled out because the Minister has taken no action about them. Thus, we are left with equality of charging freedom, and it seems to me that upon this we ought to struggle hard to ensure that there is real equality.

In the Bill we are doing something to relieve the rail of its obligation to publish rates, and this will be welcomed by every rail expert. What is included in the Bill in this connection is something which the railways tried hard to establish under the old "Square Deal" proposals. As an old railwayman, I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

But it must be said that we are by no means reaching a position in which there will be equality of charging freedom. Some of the value of Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman had included in the Bill are removed because of the provisions of Clause 20 which protects traders against unfair or unreasonable rail charges but makes not the slightest attempt to apply the same protection to users against unfair and unreasonable road charges.

The Minister argues that it is impracticable to secure this, but the Road-Rail Agreement, 1946, which was arrived at by practical men who really understood the industry, contained provisions which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, gave the users some right to protection against unfair competition between the two. It also proposed to set up a road-rail tribunal to which road users, as well as rail users. who felt that they were unjustly used in the matter of charges, would have a chance to complain and get some redress.

That is not the case with the Bill. It we are to have something like equality of right as between one section of transport users and another, and equality of competition between one method of transport and another, these Amendments must be accepted and thus remove one of the charges which railwaymen have against the Bill, which is that, despite what is being done, we have by no means reached the position in which there is equality of competition.

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

The debate on this series of Amendments has been, by the nature of things, much of an echo of the one we had earlier about the publication of charges. I desire to approach the suggestions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not from the standpoint of a clash between private and public enterprise, or indeed on any ideological basis. but merely on the basis of the objections to the whole group of Amendments from the standpoint of administrative machinery.

Hon. Members opposite are anxious to bring road haulage into the same position as the railways as regards traders' rights of representations and complaints. I want to deal with this on a purely factual basis. I begin by submitting to the Committee that the circumstances of road and rail are very different. In the first place, a very large proportion of railway traffic cannot pass by any other form of transport. Reference has been made several times to the fact that most of the traffic in coal and other basic materials proceeds by rail, and in some isolated areas many more commodities are similarly affected.

On the other hand, most road transport is subject to competition, not only from the railways but also from other individual road hauliers. I concede at once to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there may be a small proportion of traffic in isolated areas and in special circumstances which must pass by road and for which there is but little competition; but I add immediately that competition will increase with the passing of the Bill and with the growth of road haulage.

In the case of the railways, the rights which we give traders in Clause 20 are in substitution of their existing rights, many of which are a century old. These provide for complaints against inequality and undue preference, and that they may oppose, or apply for, exceptional rates and oppose, or apply for, the fixing of charges on the basis of agreed charges.

No similar rights exist or have existed in regard to road haulage charges. I submit to the Committee—I will produce evidence which I regard as important—that it is impracticable to operate the Clause in relation to road haulage charges for reasons touched on by my right hon. Friend on Clause 18. For one thing the determination of reasonableness involves some sort of yardstick. In the case of railway charges, as the Clause indicates, the test which is normally contemplated is that of comparison with charges made for similar traffics in similar circumstances. That has always been the yardstick.

I submit that such a comparison does not obtain, and cannot obtain, in the case of road haulage charges, and I will tell the Committee why I think that is so. One cannot compare, for instance, the charges made by a haulier operating in districts or circumstances which necessarily involve high costs with those of another haulier operating in districts or in circumstances involving much lower cost.

I now come to what I suggest, to hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular, is an impressive reason for rejecting the Amendment. It is often said that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. May I remind the Committee that during the last war the then Minister of War Transport, as he was designated—my noble Friend the Secretary of State—who had with him as his Parliamentary Secretary at that time the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. NoelBaker)—a formidable coalition—attempted to impose a measure of control of road haulage charges, and the consequence was the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Order, 1942.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had an opportunity when he was at the Ministry of Transport to study the history of this matter. I have been studying it with some interest since this Amendment appeared on the Paper. The history is this. The Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Order, 1942, was subsequently amended in 1946 during the regime of the late Socialist Government, but I think before the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East arrived at the Ministry. I am about to show the Committee that in operation this proved astonishingly ineffective, through no lack of effort, I am sure, on the part of the Socialist Ministers who were in charge.

Before the original Order was made in 1942, the whole matter was examined in great detail and with the most expert advice, and the best that could be done in these Orders was to enable any person upon whom a road haulage charge fell to complain to the appropriate regional transport commissioner that the charge was too high. The test to be applied was that the charge should not exceed what would have been regarded as fair and reasonable in July, 1939, which date has so often been taken as a basis of calculations, with the addition of a percentage reflecting increase in costs from that date, regard being had to any variation in incidence of costs. We have now had 10 years' experience, and six years since the Order was amended by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, the Orders are still in force, so that those who are interested in the matter cannot complain about lack of machinery—machinery evolved by themselves with great care during their period of office. But it has proved by experience to be a largely hypothetical formula, with little relation to business practice. The Orders are still operable, and, so far from moving an Amendment to this Bill, I suggest in all good temper that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been far better employed in trying to make their Orders operate between the years 1945 and 1951. I make no charge of incompetence at all; I merely mention this to emphasise the point, which I hope I have tried to make reasonably.

Mr. H. Morrison

Wishing us a happy Christmas.

Mr. Braithwaite

We would all wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy festive season after his experiences at Morecambe. We wish him joy around the family hearth, but at the moment we are discussing these Orders. As I hope I have shown, the difficulty here is not ideological or a clash between private and public enterprise. The fact is that it has been impossible to create the necessary administrative machinery to do what hon. Members opposite desire.

We have had 10 years' experience of these Orders. They are still in operation and they have proved to be very nearly valueless, the reason being that the realm of road haulage is so different from that of the railways. Costs vary from one area to another. In asking the Committee to reject the Amendment, we base ourselves not merely upon our own desires to make this Clause workable but upon the experience of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who failed themselves to make the Order work.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

We have had to join issue with the Government on every aspect of transport ever since the publication of the discredited White Paper. The same thing happened with the first Bill and is happening with greater emphasis on this Bill. We quarrelled with them very severely about road haulage. We have yet to be satisfied about the plans for decentralisation. We object to the abolition of the Railway Executive and we are still awaiting some information about the Government's attitude towards the personnel and the new terms of reference of the Commission under the Bill.

We hoped that this afternoon we should find at least one item on which the Government and ourselves were on common ground, but we have waited in vain. I have not heard a single reply to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and, indeed the issue has been confused by the introduction of what appear to me to be a large number of irrelevant issues.

The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) waxed very indignant about a free economy, suggesting that if transport could be left to big business, all would be well. I beg of the noble Lord and his friends to read the history of transport in this country—if they have not read it before. Will they tell us why, under free economy, from, say, 1921 to 1938, the railway companies were seeking public assistance in one form or another? This is not political; this is not prejudice on my part this is factual.

Can any hon. Member opposite deny that if it had not been for the war and the measures which had to be taken, the railway industry, under the direction of big business, would have collapsed completely—and that was not the fault of politicians? 1 must confess that I am tired of repeating this, but unless we say a thing a hundred times, apparently it does not permeate minds of hon. Members opposite. I ask them once more to examine the evidence for themselves.

In passing, let me again remind them of the plea of the railway directors to their employees to engage in the square deal campaign. They said, "Go to the chambers of commerce, go to the rotary clubs; use your influence on your town council; wherever you can make a public appeal or exercise public influence, do so, and beg of them to give us a square deal for the railways." They whispered something more in our ears, "When you are begging for that square deal for the railways see if you can do something to get us monopoly rights in the air so that we can develop the air service. Do not bother your heads about the canals. They are not worth bothering with." In that way they were wasting a great public asset. If a free economy were to be the salvation of transport in this country the business should have done well by 1938, but they were very relieved to have help from the Government from 1939 onwards.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Wilson

Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the square deal campaign started by asking for the very things we are now doing in Clause 19?

Mr. Morris

I sometimes feel that lawyers are the last hope of the nation. There are honourable exceptions, but the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted is not one, I must agree. When I remember the experience of the hon. Member, I realise that it taught him nothing at all. I can understand his leaving the railway service. If he understood as little of it then as he has revealed since, he—[Interruption.] If big business was the solution, it could have solved the transport problem up to 1938.

The Parliamentary Secretary said quite clearly that his objection to the Amendment was not of an ideological or political character. He objected to it on purely administrative grounds. If there are administrative difficulties on the road aspect of the matter I should like to know why the Parliamentary Secretary does not have some regard for the administrative difficulties on the railway side. If he feels that he can trust road hauliers, why does he not feel a little confidence in the railways? To talk about opposition to the Amendment as entirely due to administrative difficulties is to evade the point.

The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South said that we would have a haulier in every town, and, indeed, in every village, so that if a man were not satisfied with a quotation he received he could telephone to someone else, said the noble Lord, 200 miles away. I wonder what sort of business deal that would be if a haulier got a trunk call from a man 200 miles away who said, "I am not satisfied with the rates quoted by my local road haulier," and asked him to come that tremendous distance to do a little job.

Some of these hauliers are under the impression that the Conservative Party will give them every opportunity to ply for hire or reward and that there will be no difficulty. Let them not delude themselves. As it happened on the passenger side so it will happen on the road side. The big fish will swallow the little fish and it will not be long before, instead of having the small hauliers, we shall have the great haulage companies taking the profits and squeezing the little men out altogether. Why have the road hauliers been able to quote low rates so frequently? I would like to tell the Committee something out of my own experience.

After the introduction of nationalisation, we felt that the road administrative staff should be catered for and we started making inquiries. We found that out of 17,000 clerical and administrative workers only 3,000 were given anything like a decent salary by the companies and that 14,000 were working for a mere pittance. "Sunday work? As much as you like, but you will not get anything for it. Overtime? We do not understand that term. We are a competitive business and for that reason you must lend a hand and work all day if necessary. Holidays? According to the exigencies of the business, and that is all."

These 14,000 people were profoundly thankful when an organisation was able to joint the T. and G.W.U.—who had catered for the operative men outside—to get them decent conditions of employment, a guaranteed salary, some prospects of promotion, proper accommodation and encourage them to feel that in working in the clerical industry they were making a contribution to the business of the country and had every reason to be proud of what they were doing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Were these people members of a trade union?

Mr. Lindgren

They dared not let them join.

Mr. Morris

I am obliged to the Minister for that intervention. The answer is "Not 25 per cent. of them."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Morris

I will tell the Committee why. It was because of the intimidation that was practised. The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question because he did not know the answer and, when I give it to him, he shakes his head. We can give the right hon. Gentleman scores of cases where men were afraid to join the trade unions because they were told that there was no time for that sort of nonsense.

When this business goes back to the road, these men will be apprehensive. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that they ought not to be apprehensive he can give us the assurances that we want—that before the Bill is passed he will call upon the new employer to be as decent as the employer under nationalisation. If he does that, he will get a little more good will than is available now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have here figures which I have used before in the House. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to the Financial and Statistical Accounts of the Transport Commission for 1951, page 177, he will find the wastage from all causes during the year. They are remarkable figures. I would not quote them to suggest that B.T.C. were bad employers, because that is not so. In this business there is a continual turnover, whether under public or private ownership. The administrative and clerical turnover in that year, operating and maintenance, totalled 23,000, of which 20,396 were men. I speak subject to correction, but I have always understood that the total number of employees was about 80,000. It is a high turnover.

Mr. Lindgren

What is the point?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The point is that before the hon. Gentleman suggests that the conditions were so intolerable before he ought to notice the heavy turnover and wonder whether it is not something in the industry itself, whether publicly or privately owned, which leads to this continual change.

Mr. Morris

The simple explanation is that before nationalisation there was catch-as-catch-can and they were competing with each other under inequitable conditions, undercutting everybody. When they were taken over by B.T.C. the negotiations with the Railway Executive and Road Haulage Executive took three years.

I want to pay this tribute to the members of the various executives: that although they were loyal to the employer, they made a serious effort to reach agreement with us upon reasonable conditions of employment and proper salaries. When those scales were published, the chairman of the Road Haulage Executive as well as the chairman of the Railway Executive pointed out that they were entitled to a great response from the indoor and outside staff because of the recognition given to their claim for improved conditions of service.

It is because we made that progress that we are apprehensive of what will happen when the Bill becomes an Act. I repeat my suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he feels these men have nothing to fear, he should give us an assurance during the Committee stage that he will call upon the private employers to do as well for the staff as have the employers under nationalisation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question. Parliament does not consist entirely of scoring points off each other, and when I asked the hon. Gentleman that question I did so sincerely in order to find out what he felt about that idea. Tomorrow, we deal with the question of compensation and pensions and kindred subjects. I know that the majority of the 80,000 employees are more concerned about future employment than they are about compensation or pensions. I shall hope, if the debate allows, to say something about that in the course of the discussion.

Mr. Morris

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I am looking forward to tomorrow, because I am hoping that he will then be able to redeem himself a little. He has already given an indication that he proposes to maintain some of the protective Sections in the 1947 Act. Since he referred to the turnover, I believe, speaking from memory, that the turnover in other industries is even higher—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Morris

The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his reference to that tomorrow.

I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, except to reduce the issue to its simplest and most direct terms. Under the Clause, the Government say that if anybody feels that the railways are making too high a charge, the customer may go to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may reach a conclusion. But if a customer feels that the road people are making too high a charge, there is no such provision. All that we are asking for, in this competition upon which the Minister insists, is fair competition and equality of treatment.

Because of the most unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and the failure of the Minister to give the necessary assurance, we are compelled to divide on the Amendment, and as a protest against the reflection that is cast upon the railways we shall divide also on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I hope that hon. Members will rally to our support.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) quite wilfully tried to distract attention from the issues which arise on the Clause and which have been so very clearly outlined by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member has taken us back, not only away from the Bill, but to long before the 1947 Act—the Act which was passed during the time his own party were in office.

Mr. P. Morris

It was not I who did that. The initiative was taken by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who took us back to that time, and it was replying to his argument—[An HON. MEMBER: "And that of the Parliamentary Secretary"]—that caused me to say what I did.

Mr. Renton

That, no doubt, excused the hon. Member in the eyes of the Chair, and I hope that I shall also be excused if I make a brief attempt to answer some of the arguments which the hon. Member has put.

Mr. Lindgren

On a point of order. It has been the custom in the House to declare an interest.

Mr. H. Morrison

The hon. Member was not playing the game.

Mr. Lindgren

The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) declared his interest in regard to the docks and harbours. [An HON MEMBER: "He had to."] The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) derives the major portion of his income from road hauliers in the traffic courts. Should he not declare an interest?

Mr. Renton

That is a monstrous allegation.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

That is not a point of order. It may be a point of taste.

Mr. Renton

As the point has been raised, I disclose that before the war I acted for all four main line railway companies a very great deal in the Traffic Commissioners' courts, but since the war I have made, I think, two appearances in those courts and one appearance on appeal before the Road and Rail Traffic Appeal Tribunal. I have dealt with, perhaps, half a dozen cases concerning the interpretation of the 1947 Act. I now give way to the hon. Member in order that he may unreservedly withdraw.

Mr. Lindgren

There is nothing to withdraw. The hon. Member has now declared an interest which I wanted him to declare.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In defence of my hon. Friend, is it not very unfair that a charge which would make his contribution of much less value if it were true, has been made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who, having been a Minister himself, knows the serious nature of that sort of charge? When someone who has been formerly a trade union official gets up to make a contribution on a subject, we never say that he has a vested interest. It really is monstrous that the hon. Member should make a charge like that.

May I add also that when a reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan), somebody said that he had to declare his interest? As someone who served in the Navy with my hon. Friend during the war, I know that his honour, both in peace and in war, is in safe hands. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have the generosity now to withdraw his charge.

Mr. Lindgren

As far as I am concerned, there is no charge to withdraw. The hon. Member was speaking to a vested interest, and I maintain what I said.

Mr. Renton

What is equally important is that it is, I think, a recognised fact that members of the Bar when speaking in the House, do not declare an interest which arises from their practice. To do so would be advertising, which is contrary to the etiquette of their profession. I am very hurt indeed about this, but I shall turn from it to answer the hon. Member for Swansea, West.

8.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Swansea, West made certain statements about the position of the railways at the time of nationalisation; but perhaps he forgot that a very nice nest egg earned by the railways during the war, and amounting, possibly, to between £140 million and £150 million was taken over by the British transport Commission and simply passed into their liquid assets. It was described as a deferred maintenance charge, but it was money very fairly earned which the Government of the day, perhaps rightly, did not allow them to spend. But I do know that those who had charge of the railways at the time of nationalisation would have felt much more confident of the future if there had been no nationalisation than when nationalisation had taken place.

It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are wilfully evading the issue of this Clause, but it is an extremely simple one. The simple issue is that one has to make a choice between four kinds of transport system. One can have complete monopoly, incomplete monopoly, regulated competition, or unbridled competition. The 1947 Act stood, not for complete monopoly, but for incomplete monopoly. One may call it a leaky monoply; integration became impossible under it. Although the Act prescribes that there should be a charges scheme within two years, there is still not one for freight charges.

Then we come to regulated competition and in the background of regulated competition we have to consider this Clause and the advisability or otherwise of these Amendments. That regulated competition made for the railways and buses alone monopolies over certain routes, and it is right that their charges should be subject to some kind of statutory regulation to ensure that no charges above certain maxima are observed. That is all provided for, partly in earlier Clauses of the Bill, and partly, so far as the buses are concerned, by the 1930 Act.

As far as road haulage is concerned, we treat the matter quite differently. We say that under the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities—hon. Members opposite have overlooked the importance of the licensing authorities in the whole scheme—plans are arrived at within their jurisdiction. It is their duty to see that there is no wasteful, and what hon. Members opposite would call cut-throat, competition. It is also their duty to see that there is a sufficient supply of road transport to provide a freedom of choice. Provided there is that amount of road transport, the difficulties, if any, which the trader comes up against and which the hon. Member was trying to describe can be overcome. If the trader is not satisfied with the road haulage, all he has to do, instead of going to a tribunal as hon. Members opposite would like, is to ring up another haulier. That is a simpler way than adding another massive procedure and another tribunal.

Mr. H. Morrison

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), with our full concurrence on the Front Bench, did announce that there would be a Division on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," as well as a Division on the Amendment on which he has spoken. The debate has gone to and fro across the Committee. Although we thought that as we were working under the Guillotine the speech of my hon. Friend would wind up this discussion on the Amendment, in view of the time taken by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton)—which I thought a little redundant in view of the exchanges which had taken place, quite fairly, between both sides of the Committee—we propose to divide on the Amendment, but in the circumstances, and in view of the time which has been occupied by the other side we must deny ourselves the perfectly legitimate right of dividing on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Otherwise, we should be taking up time needed for discussion of later Amendments.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 264.

Division No. 54.] AYES [6.28 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) King, Dr. H. M.
Adams, Richard Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Kinley, J.
Albu, A. H. Ewart, R. Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Allen, Arthur (Besworth) Fernyhough, E. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Field, W. J. Lewis, Arthur
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Finch, H. J. Lindgren, G. S.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Follick, M. Logan, D. G.
Awbery, S. S. Foot, M. M. MacColl, J. E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Forman, J. C. McGhee, H. G.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bartley, P. Freeman, John (Watford) McLeavy, F.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Freeman, Peter (Newport) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Bence, C. R. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Benn, Wedgwood Gibson, C. W. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Benson, G. Glanville, James Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Beswick, F. Gooch, E. G. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bing, G. H. C. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Blackburn, F. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Manuel, A. C.
Blenkinsop, A. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Mayhew, C. P.
Blyton, W. R. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mellish, R. J.
Boardman, H. Grey, C. F. Messer, F.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mikardo, Ian
Bowden, H. W. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mitchison, G. R.
Bowles, F. G. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Monslow, W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hale, Leslie Moody, A. S.
Brockway, A. F. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hall, John T. Gateshead, W.) Morley, R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hamilton, W. W. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hannan, W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hardy, E. A. Mort, D. L.
Burke, W. A. Hargreaves, A. Moyle, A.
Burton, Miss F. E. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Mulley, F. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hastings, S. Murray, J. D.
Callaghan, L. J. Hayman, F. H. Nally, W.
Carmichael, J. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Champion, A. J. Herbison, Miss M. Oldfield, W. H.
Chapman, W. D. Hewitson, Capt. M. Oliver, G. H.
Chetwynd, G. R Hobson, C. R. Oliver, G. H.
Clunie, J. Holman, P. Oswald, T.
Coldrick, W. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Padley, W. E.
Collick, P. H. Houghton, Douglas Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Palmer, A. M. F.
Crosland, C. A. R. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pannell, Charles
Daines, P. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pargiter, G. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Parker, J.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Paton, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Peart, T. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Issacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Plummmer, Sir Leslie
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Janner, B. Popplewell, E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Porter, G.
Deer, G. Jeger, George (Goole) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Delargy, H. J. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Dodds, N. N. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Proctor, W. T.
Donnelly, D. L. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Rankin, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Reeves, J.
Edelman, M. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Keenan, W. Rhodes, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Kenyon, C. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Sylvester, G. O. Wheeldon, W. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Ross, William Taylor, John (West Lothian) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) Wigg, George
Short, E. W. Thomas, David (Aberdare) Wilkins, W. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Willey, F. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Williams, David (Neath)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Slater, J. Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Thornton, E. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Thurtle, Ernest Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Snow, J. W. Timmons, J. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Sorensen, R. W. Tomney, F. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank Turner-Samuels, M. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Sparks, J. A. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Steele, T. Viant, S. P. Wyatt, W. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Watkins, T. E. Yates, V. F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. Weitzman, D. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Wells, William (Walsall) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stross, Dr. Barnett West, D. G. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Cuthbert, W. N. Horobin, I. M.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Alport, C. J. M. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Deedes, W. F. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Digby, S. Wingfield Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Arbuthnot, John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hurd, A. R.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Doughty, C. J. A. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Drayson, G. B. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Drewe, C. Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Baldwin, A. E. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Banks, Col. C. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Barber, Anthony Duthie, W. S. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Barlow, Sir John Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M Jennings, R.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Erroll, F. J. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Fell, A. Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Finlay, Graeme Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Fisher, Nigel Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Kaberry, D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Fort, R. Keeling, Sir Edward
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Foster, John Kerr, H. W.
Birch, Nigel Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Lambert, Hon. G.
Bishop, F. P. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Lambton, Viscount
Black, C. W. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bossom, A. C. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Langford-Holt, J. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A Gammans, L. D. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward Garner-Evans, E. H. Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Braine, B. R. George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Godber, J. B. Linstead, H. N.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Gomme-Duncan, Col A. Llewellyn, D. T.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Gough, C. F. H. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Gower, H. R. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C. Graham, Sir Fergus Longden, Gilbert
Browne, Jack (Govan) Gridley, Sir Arnold Low, A. R. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon, P. G. T. Grimond, J. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Bullard, D. G. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bullock, Capt. M. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hall, John (Wycombe,) McAdden, S. J.
Burden, F. F. A. Harden, J. R. E. McCallum, Major D.
Butcher, H. W. Hare, Hon. J. H. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Campbell, Sir David Harris, Reader (Heston) Macdonald, Sir Peter
Carr, Robert Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Carson, Hon. E. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) McKibbin, A. J.
Cary, Sir Robert Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Channon, H. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Hay, John Maclean, Fitzroy
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Heald, Sir Lionel Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Heath, Edward MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Cole, Norman Henderson, John (Cathcart) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Colegate, W. A. Higgs, J. M. C. Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Cranborne, Viscount Hirst, Geoffrey Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Holland-Martin, C. J. Markham, Major S. F.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hollis, M. C. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Crouch, R. F. Holt, A. F. Marples, A. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Maudling, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Rayner, Brig. R. Sutcliffe, H.
Mellor, Sir John Redmayne, M. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Molson, A. H. E. Remnant, Hon. P. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Renton, D. L. M. Teeling, W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Robson-Brown, W. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Roper, Sir Harold Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Nicholls, Harmar Russell, R. S. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Tilney, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Touche, Sir Gordon
Nield, Basil (Chester) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Turton, R. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas Tweedsmuir, Lady
Nugent, G. R. H. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) Vane, W. M. F.
Nutting, Anthony Scott, R. Donald Vosper, D. F.
Odey, G. W. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Wade, D. W.
O'Neill Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Walker-Smith, D. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Osborne, C. Snadden, W. McN. Watkinson, H. A.
Partridge, E. Soames, Capt. C. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Speir, R. M. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Perkins, W. R. D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Peyton, J. W. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Stevens, G. P. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Wills, G.
Pitman, I. J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Powell, J. Enoch Storey, S. Wood, Hon. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) York, C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Profumo, J. D. Studholme, H. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Raikes, H. V. Summers, G. S. Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.
Division No. 55.] AYES [8.50 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. O'Brien, T.
Adams, Richard Grey, C. F. Oldfield, W. H
Albu, A. H. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Orbach, M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oswald, T.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Griffiths, William (Exchange) Padley, W. E.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Hale, Leslie Paget, R. T.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Awbery, S. S Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hamilton, W. W. Pannell, Charles
Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J Hannan, W. Pargiter, G. A
Bartley, P. Hardy, E. A. Parker, J.
Bence, C. R. Hargreaves, A. Paton, J.
Bann, Wedgwood Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Peart, T. F.
Benson, G. Hastings, S. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Beswick, F. Hayman, F. H. Popplewell, E.
Bing, G. H. C. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Porter, G.
Blackburn, F. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Blenkinsop, A. Herbison, Miss M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Blyton, W. R. Hewitson, Capt. M. Proctor, W. T.
Boardman, H. Hobson, C. R. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Holman, P. Rankin, John
Bowden, H. W. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bowles, F. G. Houghton, Douglas Reid, William (Camlachie)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Rhodes, H.
Brockway, A. F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Burke, W. A. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Ross, William
Burton, Miss F. E. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Royle, C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Callaghan, L. J. Janner, B. Short, E. W.
Carmichael, J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Champion, A. J. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Chapman, W. D. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Slater, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Clunie, J. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Coldrick, W. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Snow, J. W.
Collick, P. H. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Sorensen, R. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cove, W. G. Keenan, W. Sparks, J. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kenyon, C. Steele, T.
Crosland, C. A. R. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Daines, P. King, Dr. H. M. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Kinley, J. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Stross, Dr. Barnett
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lewis, Arthur Swingler, S. T.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lindgren, G. S. Sylvester, G. O.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Logan, D. G. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, G. MacColl, J. E. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Delargy, H. J. McGhee, H. G. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Dodds, N. N. McInnes, J. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Driberg, T. E. N. McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) McLeavy, F. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edelman, A. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Edwards, John (Brighouse) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thornton, E
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Timmons, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Tomney, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mann, Mrs. Jean Turner-Samuels, M.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Manuel, A. C. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Mayhew, C. P. Viant, S. P.
Ewart, R. Mellish, R. J. Watkins, T. E.
Fernyhough, E Messer, F. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Field, W. J. Mikardo, Ian Weitzman, D.
Fienburgh, W. Mitchison, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Finch, H. J. Monslow, W. Wells, William (Walsall)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Moody, A. S. West, D. G.
Follick, M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Fool, M. M. Morley, R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Forman, J. C. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Freeman, John (Watford) Mort, D. L. Wigg, George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N Moyle, A. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Gibson, C. W. Mulley, F. W. Wilkins, W. A.
Glanville, James Murray, J. D. Willey, F. T.
Gooch, E. G. Nally, W. Williams, David (Neath)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) Yates, V. F.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) Wyatt, W. L. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Gammans, L. D. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Garner-Evans, E. H. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Alport, C. J. M. Glyn, Sir Ralph Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Godber, J. B. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Arbuthnot, John Gough, C. F. H. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Gower, H. R. Markham, Major S. F.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Graham, Sir Fergus Marlowe, A. A. H.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Gridley, Sir Arnold Marples, A. E.
Baldwin, A. E Grimond, J. Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Banks, Col. C. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Barber, Anthony Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maude, Angus
Barlow, Sir John Hall, John (Wycombe) Maudling, R
Beach, Maj. Hicks Harden, J. R. E. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Harris, Reader (Heston) Medlicott, Brig. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Mellor, Sir John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Harvie-Watt, Sir George Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Hay, John Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H Nabarro, G. D. N.
Birch, Nigel Heald, Sir Lionel Nicholls, Harmar
Bishop, F. P Heath, Edward Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Bossom, A. C. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Higgs, J. M. C. Nield, Basil (Chester)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Braine, B. R. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nugent, G. R. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hirst, Geoffrey Nutting, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Holland-Martin, C. J. Oakshott, H. D.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Holt, A. F. Odey, G. W.
Brooman-White, R. C. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Horobin, I. M. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bullard, D. G. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bullock, Capt. M. Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Osborne, C.
Burden, F. F. A. Hurd, A. R. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Butcher, H. W. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Campbell, Sir David Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Carr, Robert Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Peyton, J. W W.
Carson, Hon. E. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cary, Sir Robert Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Channon, H. Jennings, R. Pitman, I. J.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Powell, J. Enoch
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Cole, Norman Jones, A. (Hall Green) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L
Colegate, W. A. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Profume, J. D.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E Kaberry, D. Raikes, H. V.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Keeling, Sir Edward Rayner, Brig. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Kerr, H. W. Redmayne, M.
Cranborne, Viscount Lambert, Hon. G. Remnant, Hon. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lambton, Viscount Renton, D. L. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Robertson, Sir David
Crouch, R. F. Langford-Holt, J. A. Robson-Brown, W.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Reper, Sir Harold
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Russell, R. S.
Deedes, W. F. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Digby, S. Wingfield Linstead, H. N. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Llewellyn, D. T. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Doughty, C. J. A. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Drayson, G. B. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Drewe, C. Longden, Gilbert Scott, R. Donald
Dugdale, Rt. Hn Sir T. (Richmond) Low, A. R. W. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Duthie, W. S. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Shepherd, William
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. McAdden, S. J. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fell, A. McCallum, Major D Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Finlay, Graeme McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Fisher, Nigel Macdonald, Sir Peter Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Snadden, W. McN.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. McKibbin, A. J. Soames, Capt. C
Fort, R. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Speir, R. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Maclean, Fitzroy Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Stevens, G. P. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) Watkinson, H. A.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Tilney, John White, Baker (Canterbury)
Storey, S. Turner, H. F. L. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) Turton, R. H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Tweedsmuir, Lady Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Studholme, H. G. Vane, W. M. F. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Summers, G. S. Wade, D. W. Wills, G.
Sutcliffe, H. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone) Wood, Hon. R.
Teeling, W. Walker-Smith, D. C. York, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and
Mr. Vosper.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.