HC Deb 17 December 1952 vol 509 cc1511-47
Mr. Robert Allan (Paddington, South)

I beg to move, in page 29, line 18, to leave out from "continued," to the end of line 20, and to insert: is likely to result in a loss to the Commission and which will place him or a member of the class of persons represented by any such body, as the case may be, at an unfair disadvantage. The Clause we have just passed dealt with the protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment as regards charges with reference to the railways. This Clause offers protection for competitors of the Commission in other spheres of their activities. I wish to make a few remarks on this Amendment in reference to the interests of docks and harbours, and I repeat that I have an interest in this matter, in that I am Parliamentary Chairman of the Docks and Harbours Association. As I disclosed last night, however, that position is a purely honorary one, and my interest is not as substantial as some hon. Members opposite seemed to think.

The protection given to independent docks and harbours is laid down in Section 30 of the Act of 1888, in the undue preference Clause. In Clause 19 of this Bill, the protection granted under that Section of the Act of 1888 is removed, and Clause 21 is inserted in its place. We on this side are very anxious to protect the interests of the small men and the independent authorities against the giant combine which the British Transport Commission will still control even after this Bill is passed into law.

I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite should scoff at that, because the principle of protection seems to be fairly generally accepted, even on the benches opposite. Further down on the Order Paper is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and some of his hon. Friends, in line 19, which accepts the idea of protection in principle, but rather looks at it the other way round. Whereas in this Amendment I am trying to protect the Davids of transport against the Goliath of the British Transport Commission, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is interested in protecting the Goliath. The consumer does not come into it at all; he came into the last Clause, but he does not come into this one.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

Surely the consumer comes into it, if we are talking about rates and charges, as we are here, in theory at least? As the Commission will be charging lower rates than some competitors, is not that of advantage to the consumer?

Mr. Allan

It may or may not be, but in this particular Clause we are seeking to protect the independent dock authorities against what might be the unfair charges of the Transport Commission, who are still going to be the owners of the docks and harbours at present managed by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.

I welcome the intention of this Clause, and when I saw the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South and his hon. Friends I thought that we were going to have that meeting of minds the absence of which my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) recently deplored. I believe that we are all agreed on the need for this Clause, but I do not think that, as it is drafted, it is workable, because under Clause 21 a complaint against the charges made by the Commission has to establish three things. First of all, it has to establish that the charges are less than the maximum charge, if any. That would be perfectly easy to prove. Secondly, it has to establish that if continued the charges must result in a loss to the Commission. That is rather more difficult to prove, though not impossible. Thirdly, it has to establish that they are being made with a view to eliminating competition. In my view, that is impossible to prove.

Under Section 30 of the 1888 Act there have been many appeals about charges to the old Railway Tribunal and they have very rarely succeeded simply because it is almost impossible to prove an intention in anybody's mind. One can show that the charges are unreasonably low, but one cannot prove to the satisfaction of any tribunal the reason why they are low. I claim, therefore, that if, under the old Act, these protective Clauses were virtually impossible to prove, the present wording of this Clause would be quite impossible to prove. I submit that the words of the Amendment are quite capable of proof, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already indicated his intention of reviewing this Clause before the Report stage, I hope very much that he will consider this Amendment very seriously.

Mr. Sparks

There is one point which I should like to put as briefly as I can with regard to what the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) has just said. A very important principle is at stake here because the Clause as it is proposed to be amended lays it down as a condition that a road haulier or any other competitor may make a complaint to the Transport Tribunal if the Commission is operating a service which can be regarded as being operated at a loss.

The hon. Member must understand that there are quite a number of services operated by the Transport Commission at the present time that are being run economically at a loss. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] The closing of certain branch lines are a clear indication of that, because traffic over those lines has been found to be uneconomical and they have been closed and road haulage has undertaken the conveyance of the traffic. There are quite a number of other similarly placed branch lines which convey not only passenger traffic but a certain amount of freight traffic as well, with which this Clause is concerned.

If the Transport Commission were impugned for continuing to run those uneconomic services just because the charges they make do not cover the cost of transport of merchandise over that portion of the line, what we would be doing would be to raise the charges to the consumers and traders in the area in which that uneconomic line is operating. Therefore, the hon. Member for Paddington, South and his hon. Friends are asking, in effect, that the charges in those areas, which are mostly sparsely populated rural areas. shall be increased to a point where they are economic.

Mr. R. Allan

The Clause as it stands speaks of charges being made "with a view to eliminating competition." It presupposes competition. Therefore, there must be some alternative. The point the hon. Gentleman is making simply does not arise.

Mr. Sparks

I do not think that the Minister would give that assurance at all.

The main aim and object of this Bill is to provide road haulage and to create competition in such areas. It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that there will be no road hauliers anywhere in the vicinity of the Transport Commission's railway undertakings. There win be, if the Bill is to mean anything. There will be road hauliers in competition, and there will be competition between the railways and the road hauliers.

Therefore, in the circumstances I have mentioned, if there is a road haulier who wants to start business he can go straight away to the Tribunal and make a complaint that British Railways are operating a service over a certain branch line which is uneconomic and causing a loss to the Commission, and that therefore, the charges they are making are unfair and not competitive; and the Transport Tribunal would have to make up its mind on a point like this.

If the Clause remains as it is, then the Commission can be directed to increase its charges in areas of the kind I have mentioned, which, in effect, means that. the consumer will pay more for the services in those very sparsely populated areas. I wanted to make that point, because it is a very important one and reveals a great weakness of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) for the brief way in which he has moved this Amendment, no doubt in order to facilitate any future Amendments the Opposition may have in mind. It would, perhaps, be a good idea to be quite clear precisely what the consequences would be. At the moment, under Clause 21, to which I have already referred on an earlier Clause, the charge to which a competitor is entitled to complain must not only be uneconomic and likely to result in a loss to the Commission but designed to eliminate competition.

My hon. Friend now suggests we should substitute for the words in line 18, page 29: must result in a loss to the Commission … the words: is likely to result in a loss to the Commission and which will place him or a member of the class of persons represented by any such body, as the case may be, at an unfair disadvantage. He has in mind, first, that there should be some apportionment of the central charges—a thing which I know he feels strongly about to enable every activity of the Commission to be judged in isolation. Secondly, the effect of this should not be to lead to the loss of anybody represented by any such body. I tried the day before yesterday, no doubt inadequately, to explain how almost impossible it is to apportion a share of the central charges of activities so widespread as those of the Commission, that can be fairly applied to any particular undertaking.

If the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) had been lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair I should have had to explain that to her. She was a long way from the tumbrils all through the discussion, however. The Guillotine would not have caught her. She had no wish to be wounded by the Guillotine. But I should have had to explain to the hon. Lady the same consideration applied.

After all, Section 3 (4) of the Act of 1947, which is the parent Act, and, indeed, sacrosanct in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, said: … the Commission shall so conduct that undertaking and, subject to the provisions of this Act, levy such fares, rates, tolls, dues and other charges, as to secure that the revenue of the Commission is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another. It did not attempt to separate the harbour activities, road haulage activities, or the railway activities of the Commission. It is therefore really very difficult to meet my hon. Friend on this specific request, that we should in some way protect the people for whom he speaks, and who are fully entitled to consideration from this Committee against activities contrary to their interests that are conducted at a loss.

Here I should like to say of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), that I thought we had a gem of Socialist thought when he talked about an undertaking conducted "economically at a loss." No doubt that explains a great many things that have happened in the last few years.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Sparks

I may have said some queer things in my time, but I certainly did not say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If I did then, I must substitute the word "uneconomically" for "economically."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If that is the worst slip the hon. Gentleman makes in the House of Commons his reputation will be far higher than that of many of us on both sides of the Committee.

I do not think it is possible to meet my hon. Friend on the point that the Commission's activities vis-à-vis those about whom he is rightly concerned must be judged in isolation, and they must pay their proper share of overheads of the cost of the centralised organisation.

Clause 21 is an important Clause. I know that it has been very much resented by some people as giving to the competitors of the Commission an unfair advantage. Clause 20 dealt with traders who have a grievance, and I think that the balance of the argument was on our side, although here I may be prejudiced.

Mr. Callaghan


Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should be a bad Minister if I were not.

In Clause 21 we are dealing with the competitors of the Commission. One group of competitors are those most important people to whom my hon. Friend has referred. Another group are the coastal shipping people, whose interests are in all our minds, and whose championship is often in the mouth of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). We are considering a redrafting of Clause 21 so as to preserve the protection given to coastal shipping, and in the course of that reconsideration we shall naturally consider also the position of the harbour authorities, to whom reference has been made.

Mr. Callaghan

Is that all?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No, not a bit.

Earlier tonight, in the discussion on Clause 19 I tried to explain, in face of a good deal of interruption, why we were omitting lines 32 to 35 in page 27. They dealt with harbour authorities. The purpose of omitting these lines was to preserve the existing protection that harbour authorities have under the Act in question until a revised Clause 21—and now we are dealing with the original Clause 21—comes into force after a charges scheme. When we drew up this Clause we were anxious to provide for what is unmistakably a period of transition. We are moving from a world in which the railways were handicapped into a world in which we all hope they will be able to stand on their own feet.

An Hon. Member


Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have never made any other claim than this, that no Government can guarantee that any one branch of transport will succeed. All a Government can do is to take off any one branch the handicaps put on it by previous Governments.

I have been most careful never to pitch the claim too high. All I have said is that we cannot today sterilise the interests of any one branch of industry. Who knows whether in a hundred years all that we are now talking about may not be resolved by some entirely new form of transport in the air. What we can do is to see that in our generation no form of transport is unfairly handicapped, and the duty of the Government is to lift the burdens that other Governments, with full justification, imposed on them generations ago.

In this Clause we have said that all competitors or bodies representative of competitors, which will include my hon. Friend, coastal shipping and the road hauliers, shall be allowed to challenge—

Mr. Morrison

Vested interests.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The right hon. Gentleman may describe coastal shipping as a vested interest, but remembering the days of Dunkirk, as we all do, he did not regard coastal shipping then as a selfish interest, but as part of the wealth of Britain which helped us to survive. I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe me in this, that we are undoubtedly confronting—

Mr. Morrison


Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Please let me finish this argument.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman dare not give way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will give way when I have finished this sentence. I am ready to give way on anything concerned with either of the two wars in which we have been engaged. We are now undoubtedly confronting coastal shipping with new problems through the freeing of road haulage, and I am anxious not to add to their difficulties.

I was about to explain—and I should be glad to have one minute more—that we have approached this problem from the point of view of all competitors—and competitors are not necessarily vested competitors. They have to establish, under the Clause as drawn, that the charges are less than the maximum and, if continued, must result in a loss to the Commission, and that they are designed to eliminate competition, with the inevitable consequences that once they have eliminated competition, as they are uneconomic charges they would have to raise them again to the disadvantage of the customer, who, when there is no competition, would appear to us should be protected.

We have reconsidered the position of the road hauliers in this field, and we do not propose to proceed with that part of the Clause which gives this protection to road hauliers. I have discussed this matter with innumerable Members of all parties, individually, and it is my view, and the view of Her Majesty's Government, that the Clause should be amended. In the amending of that Clause, the interest for which my hon. and gallant Friend speaks in an honorary capacity—and a wholly worthy argument—and the interests of coastal shipping will be taken into account, and I hope that on Report, when we re-submit the Clause, it will command the general acceptance of the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan

This is an important matter. May I put this to the Minister? Does the Minister, when he says that protection will not be given to the road hauliers, say that they will not be in a position to exercise the right given to competitors under subsection (1)—namely, of complaint to the Tribunal against the Commission on the conditions that are laid down?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I do mean that. They will not be entitled to under the Clause, as we shall redraft it. If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise that, I shall be most interested. If he does, no doubt he will get the diary, the absence of which he has recently lamented.

Mr. Callaghan

I want to establish the facts before the Guillotine falls. The second thing which I should like to get clear, as the Minister is so courteous and we are in Committee, is this. Does that mean that the people who will be able to appeal against the Commission will be mainly the docks and harbour authorities and coastwise shipping? Will the Clause be mainly limited to those two classes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd


Mr. R. Allan

In view of the very helpful remarks of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 29, line 19, at the end, to insert: or where, in the opinion of the Commission, any charges made by a person carrying on business as aforesaid are being made at a rate—

  1. (a) which is less than that of the person's maximum published charge, if any, or that comparable charges made by the Commission; and
  2. (b) which, if continued, may result in a loss to the person."

The only reason that I rose to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman was to say that all of us admire what happened at Dunkirk without reservation, but it is not fair to bring that argument into this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is not fair because the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the interests of the railways were also involved, and that the railways, railway stations and railwaymen were bombed pretty mercilessly by the enemy during the war. It is straining things a bit to bring that in.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have no wish to separate people engaged in a common service whose only desire in war-time, and often in peace, is to be united, but we so often have to listen on this side to the charge, "What right have you to touch the railway system or road haulage—remember what they did in the war," that sometimes, particularly those of us with war experience, regard it with a certain amount of impatience. When my hon. and gallant Friend refers to coastal shipping, he is immediately accused by hon. Members opposite of having a vested interest. If we are to have justice in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman must accept in peace-time some of the hard knocks which many people had in war.

Mr. Morrison

I say again that kind of argument is rather irrelevant and not quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. One of my right hon. Friends puts it in another way, and says that it is perfectly worthy of him. One pays one's money and takes one's choice.

We are now debating a Clause which is printed in the Bill. But we are in this difficulty, and it really is an extraordinary difficulty. I am not complaining at what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do, which, so far as I can see, will somewhat improve the position. However, it is getting a little quaint. The other day when we got to a certain matter the right hon. Gentleman informed us what the views of the British Transport Commission were and promised to circulate certain draft Clauses which they had put to him. For that to have been useful, we should have had the information before and it should not have been left until we were right at the end of the discussion on the Clause and were about to vote. Now we are told that on the Report stage the bottom is to be knocked out of this. I was tempted to say that the biggest bottom was to be knocked out of the Clause, but I was not sure whether that was either grammatical or accurate.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is moving the Amendment to line 19?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, Sir Gordon.

The Temporary Chairman

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the next three Amendments.

Mr. Morrison

We shall be glad to do that if it is acceptable to you, Sir Gordon.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that on Report stage he will propose that the road haulage people shall not be able to appear against the Commission's charges on the grounds indicated in Clause 21. If he does that, presumably the road passenger transport operators will not be able to appear either. Can I take it that that is so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Let the right hon. Gentleman first finish his speech, and then I will tell him.

Mr. Morrison

I thought the right hon. Gentleman might be able to nod and thus let us know. I want to know what is left. May I know?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

We are here dealing with charges and merchandise. I am speaking subject to correction here. I have a note about it because I thought the right hon. Gentleman would ask about it. Clause 19 gives reliefs applying wholly or mainly to equality and undue preference in relation to merchandise, and this applies to passenger traffic, but the removal is not likely to have any great effect. Subject to having to correct later what I say—I do not think I shall have to—my answer to the right hon. Gentleman at the moment is that he is right, but I hope I shall not regarded as misleading the Committee if I have later to qualify that. However, at the moment my feeling is that the answer is "yes."

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Now I must go back to argue the case on the basis of the Clause as it is and on the basis of the Amendment in relation to other Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman sees where we are getting to. It is intended on the Report stage to remove the locus of the hauliers and probably the road passenger people. What is left? There are the docks and harbours, for whom the right hon. Gentleman has been appealing in certain respects. There might be inland waterways, but I do not know. What is the point of leaving the Clause in the Bill? I cannot see that there is any advantage in it in view of the very limited categories of people who will have a locus to appeal against charges before the Tribunal. There is coastwise shipping, which is material and substantial, but when we have eliminated the commercial road hauliers it does not seem to be worth while continuing with Clause 21.

I will say what the objections to Clause 21 are. The Clause, as it stands, provides that anybody affected by competition with the Transport Commission can appear before the Tribunal and object if he takes the view that the Commission's maximum charge is uneconomical and is calculated to damage the Commission if it is continued, or must result in a loss to the Commission if it is continued.

9.30 p.m.

What is the purpose of this? It is to prevent competition. No doubt the Minister will call it unfair competition, but this contradicts the whole basis on which the Bill has been brought forward, for the whole argument for the Bill is to release competition and let it rip. Cutthroat competition, which it was admitted to be in principle, was to be released under the provisions of the Bill. That has been the major argument right through—that competition between road and rail is in principle a good thing. It is another form of what the Prime Minister calls setting the people free.

But when we reach this Clause, the doctrine of competition is wiped out as a one-way traffic, and one-way traffic only. If, in the opinion of private interests—which are very wide private interests under the Clause as it stands but which will be much more limited under the Clause as amended—their economic stability is endangered, if in their opinion the competition is unfair, if they think the rates which the Commission propose to charge are too low, the Commission can be hauled up before the Tribunal to justify their charges, and the Tribunal can prevent those charges from being made and insist on them being increased.

This is the preposterous position which we have reached. The Bill is introduced for the purpose of letting rip competition between those various forms of transport and for the purpose of bringing down charges as a consequence of that competition. Now, in this Clause, if the Commission effectively compete and charge rates which in the opinion of their competitors will hurt them or are too low, then the Commission can be brought before the Tribunal. But the right hon. Gentleman is so grossly unfair, so grossly biased, so grossly prejudiced against the public authority that there is no corresponding provision for the Commission to appeal in any way against the charges of their competitors on the roads or elsewhere. If the roads were left in the Clause, clearly there should be a right for the Commission to appeal—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

They are not in.

Mr. Morrison

They are in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has not reached the stage of Parliamentary dictatorship; we are still on Committee stage and the Clause is still before us in its present form. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman announcing, "I shall do this on Report" and believing that the House of Commons will automatically agree with him. He has not the House of Commons in his pocket, although I think he hopes he has the Road Haulage Association in his pocket—or the other way about; no doubt he made sure about that before he reached this decision.

But whatever is left in the Clause—whether road haulage is left in or not, whether coastal shipping or docks and harbours are in or out, the principle remains the same—that the Bill having been introduced on the basis of free competition and the reduction of charges and costs, the Clause provides that if the Commission charge less than certain private interests think they ought, they can be hauled up before the Tribunal.

Mr. R. Allan

And the Tribunal can endorse them.

Mr. Morrison

I know all about that. I know what the argument is for the Commission being hauled up before the Tribunal. I am not sure it is worth all this bother of hauling people before a Tribunal. I thought the Minister intended to aim at setting the railways free, which he is not doing in this Clause. But I doubt whether all this is worth bothering about, although if we are going to do it against the publicly-owned transport element, why should it not be done against the privately-owned transport industry?

Mr. Allan

Privately-owned transport will go bust if it runs at a loss. The object of this provision is to see that if publicly-owned transport is running at a loss it can be held up.

Mr. Morrison

I know the constituency Paddington, South very well. The Tories of Paddington, South would be surprised if they heard the hon. Member getting up in this Committee to say that public authority can stand competition but private enterprise can not stand competition; because that is what his argument comes to.

We say that the Clause is anti-competitive so far as the public authority is concerned. It is designed to restrain the public authority from being effective in competition, but is designed at the same time to protect private interests against the Commission's being able correspondingly to appeal against their charges.

The point is perfectly simple, and there is no need for me to speak at length about it. Indeed, there is not the time, because of the Guillotine that is operating. Either, in the new circumstances, the Clause is not worth going on with, as I am inclined to think, or, if it is right to provide for appeal against charges proposed by the Commission on the ground set out in the Clause, the case is equally strong for our Amendment which would give corresponding rights to the Commission vis-à-vis the private undertakings. We cannot see that there is any answer to that case, and we therefore hope that the arguments thus briefly, but I hope fairly, stated will commend themselves to the Committee.

Mr. Sparks

Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I would draw his attention to Clause 29, which makes provision for the setting up of a reconstituted Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, upon which the coastal shipping interests have 50 per cent. of the representation. One of its functions is concerned with rates and charges, and if these are regarded as unfair in competition with coastal shipping, the Minister has power of direction to the British Transport Commission in the matter. I suggest that the point is covered in Clause 29, and that Clause 21 is redundant.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think he is right that there is a relationship between the two Clauses. Indeed, it may add to the relative injustice which is being done to the Commission under this Clause by what would appear to be done under Clause 29.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

The Committee is, of course, full of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), because he has had to indulge in a piece of shadow boxing on a quicksand. He has had to stand on false ground to attack something which does not exist. He is on false ground in that he has had to support private enterprise to attack the Clause, whereas we all know that competitive private enterprise is abhorrent to him. He has had to attack something which does not exist because my right hon. Friend had, in effect, withdrawn the Clause before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech. We are full not only of sympathy but of admiration for the skilful way in which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to sustain the debate for even five minutes.

On this side of the Committee we are all grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said on this Clause. There does not appear to have been a substantiated demand in the country for it, either from the road hauliers or from those who are versed in the interests which this Clause might be intended to protect.

It was intended originally to carry out a fine thought, a noble conception. The road hauliers, the shipping interests, the canals, the docks, the inland waterways might need some protection from the Commission because, in spite of what is being done to streamline and decentralise, the Commission remains to some degree a juggernaut in our society. So there was a consistent thought behind this Clause that the juggernaut might proceed to lambast these competitors and prevent them from carrying out their proper commercial duties.

On re-examination, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that the road haulage industry are now freed and in the future will be competitive, aggressive, modern, purposeful and prosperous and will not require this protection. So it can throw it aside. I am delighted to see that this Clause will reshape itself on Report to serve the needs of the docks, the inland waterways and the coastal shipping.

Whether the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is right in saying that Clause 29, even if amended, can cover adequately the interests of the coastal shipping people, I doubt. That Clause covers the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, which is a long-established body. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). and his friends in the industry want something firmer than that. Let us trust that during the Recess and before the Report stage we can transform this Clause to serve the needs of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Mellish

The noble Lord cannot accuse my right hon. Friend of being insincere after the speech he has just made. It is obvious that the noble Lord had a first-class brief from which he had intended to make some outrageous statements against the Transport Commission and then he found that his right hon. Friend had put all the shifting sands under him.

When the Minister reflects on all this I hope he will finally think that it is necessary to delete this Clause. As my right hon. Friend said, this Clause shows us the attitude of mind of the party opposite on such matters. It must be a very bad Clause for the Minister to want to withdraw it. It is true that we think all the Clauses are bad, but even hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this one is bad, so we can imagine just how bad it is from that.

The hatred of public ownership shown. by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is something I cannot understand I have been to a number of Tory meetings in my time to try to learn what was their policy. I went as a member of the public and sat in a back seat. I have always seen the Union Jack being used as a tablecloth—Sir Charles, you have probably seen it, too—and have heard patriotic speeches made in which the welfare of the nation has been said to be paramount. The Tories are the party of the Union Jack. They are the party who believe in the people and the country and say that we wicked Socialists do not believe in anything of the kind. I hope that the Minister will do me the courtesy of listening to at least one part of what I am saying.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Yes; go on.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish

Talking of patriotism, another thing that the Tory Party always convey is that they are the only ones who ever fight wars. It is often put that way. They certainly use the Union Jack to convey it at all their meetings. I remember going to a meeting of the Home Secretary's some time ago, when we had "Land of Hope and Glory," and so on.

Here is public ownership: The British Transport Commission—not the Labour Party Commission, but British Transport Commission. The very word "British" ought to appeal to Members opposite. They ought to recognise that what they should have done from the commencement of the Bill was to try to make the Commission work for the nation as a whole. Instead, what this rotten Clause was designed to do is to ensure that the Commission would be placed in such a position that if they were to be competitive so as to put the other people with the vested interests, whom the party opposite represent, in a position where they could not compete fairly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes; it is perfectly clear.

Mr. G. Wilson


Mr. Mellish

That might happen, for example, if the Commission fix a rate of, say, £5 for conveying a ton of cargo when the best that private enterprise could offer might be £5 10s. If the Commission were to prove that they could put forward the rate of £5, the vested interests would say that it was unfair, that the best they could do was £5 10s. and, therefore, the Commission should raise their rate to that figure. The fact that the consumer would have been able to pay at the lower rate does not, apparently, enter into the Government's argument.

Up to Clause 20, all that we were hearing about was the consumer. Now, we have dropped that and are talking about certain vested interests who might find this omnipotent monopoly putting up rates and charges which would not be competitive. It is scandalous that the consumers' interests have not been studied a little more by the party opposite. This Clause, in particular, has shown up the Tory Party for what they are. At the last moment, they have been so ashamed of it that they have decided to amend it.

The hon. Member for Paddington. South (Mr. R. Allan), at any rate, was honest enough to declare his interest and he said that many of us on this side should declare ours. My own interest is on those who are working, and who will work, in the industry and who, we honestly believe, will get worse conditions and wages through the changeover. Tomorrow, we come to the most important Amendments dealing with compensation, and I hope that the Minister will give us the same sort of assurances on those Clauses as he has given today.

Mr. G. Wilson

Hon. Members opposite might at least read the Clause before they make speeches of the type they have been making. It is quite clear that most of their arguments are totally irrelevant, because the Clause applies only to charges made by the Commission with a view to eliminating competition. Therefore, unless these charges were deliberately introduced with the intention of eliminating competition, the first part of the Clause does not apply at all.

All this argument about the Commission being expected to be attacked if it does not make a profit, and so on, does not arise. The reason why the Clause is worded in that way is probably that it would be ridiculous to suppose that coastal shipping could eliminate British Railways by unfair competition; but it is quite possible that a big organisation like British Railways might do something the other way round.

Mr. Sparks

If that does take place Clause 29 provides precisely for that. The Minister has power to take action with the Transport Commission.

Mr. Wilson

I mentioned shipping, because that is the one which seems to be left in the Clause, but, as originally drawn, the Clause applied to other things besides shipping and a small interest could not possibly eliminate the Transport Commission, nor introduce charges which were less with a view to eliminating the Commission. So, in any case, the Clause would only apply in one way. That point should be borne in mind before making general attacks of the sort which have been made this evening.

Mr. Hargreaves

I want to ask the Minister one or two questions, because I understand that this Clause is being withdrawn and reshaped, and we shall consider it again on Report stage. The Clause is so sloppily drawn that as it stands it is ineffective. It begins by talking of giving protection to carriers of goods "for hire or reward." I know that that is qualified later in the Clause, but I want to draw attention to this point. The Minister is anxious to give protection to harbour and dock authorities as against those docks and harbours owned by the Commission. He is also anxious to give protection to coastwise shipping because the Commission own coastwise shipping services and there is obviously competition there which the Minister does not want to see effective and neither do hon. Members opposite.

These are questions to which I wish the Minister to direct his attention. Earlier he wanted to give limited freedoms in charging to the Commission. Are those freedoms in charging to relate merely to conveyance rates, freight rates, as between one point and another or are they to relate to port charges which may be competitive with coastwise shipping? Is there to be any freedom in relation to the charges mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 21? I think it worth while noting the number of charges and the series of charges in which competition can occur between the Commission as a harbour or docks authority and the statutory undertakings.

I am thinking, in particular, of two adjacent one to the other, the docks undertaking owned by the Transport Commission which is in juxtaposition to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. In fact, there is one line of docks from Bootle to Garston and there are similar docks in Fishguard and other places where coastwise shipping is in operation.

My point in connection with the charges is that charges go far beyond the mere matter of conveyance. There is storage, warehousing, weighing facilities and handling of traffics in and out of steamers. All these represent a series of charges in which the Commission may or may not be in competition with coastwise services and harbour authorities. Is freedom in relation to conveyance charges—freight charges in other words —to relate also to port to port charges of coastwise shipping, and are the other charges to which I have referred to be left out of account? They are important, as anyone interested in coastwise shipping will realise and, in the aggregate, they represent very considerable sums of money.

I want the Minister to pay careful attention to the whole range of charges in framing the proposals which may later come before us in the form of a new Clause 21.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) on his ingenuity in contriving to get back again to Clause 19 when we are discussing protection for the competitors of the Commission. As I have already told him, I will examine with care those other aspects of undue preference, other than charges. He asked about full freedom and would this apply to docks and harbours. Of course it would, but, at the same time, the protection that this Clause is designed to give to the very limited competitors of the Commission in that field or coastal shipping would, also—if I may use a snappy phrase—bite on that as well.

I should like to take up a point which the hon. Gentleman made when he talked about this Clause being sloppily drawn. merely because we say we have listened to arguments and we think we are going to amend the Clause. I do not understand what hon. Gentlemen think the House of Commons is for. If we read Amendments on the Order Paper, we ponder the lessons and try to forget the speeches and remember the intentions. If sometimes we even listen to the arguments and alter a Clause, is not that what this democratic Chamber exists to provide? Apparently if we do listen we are weak-kneed people who do not know our own mind and if we do not listen we are party bosses—worthy to rank with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South himself—whose power sometimes comes to a violent end through the action of the party itself.

On this Clause, may I say at once that the Transport Commission have never quarrelled with the privileges given to coastal shipping. They did not like the introduction of the right to complain by the road haulier. But they have accepted a situation which has gone on for years and which the last Government did not attempt to disturb—and, indeed, encouraged—that coastal shipping is in a special position and occupies a special place in our national life in peace and war, and has its own particular difficulties.

It is not my fault if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have speeches carefully prepared on the assumption that the road hauliers have the right to object and then they find that they have not—

Mr. Ernest Davies

It is in the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The power of adjusting and commenting on changing situations is something we expect in a Government and we may hope to find it sometimes even from the Opposition.

The purpose of this Clause is mainly and almost entirely—though I make a reservation for the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan)—to protect coastal shipping. We are preserving their rights in Clause 21. We know that they need more protection than that. I have had talks with them and with the Commission and with the coastal people and the Commission together. We propose to give further consideration to how we can retain the existing protection to coastal shipping contained in Section 39—[HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 29."] No, I am dealing with the Act of 1933, Section 39. The general purpose of our activities will be to strengthen the protection given to coastal shipping, which is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman who asked why we should have a Clause at all.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) talked as if trifling differences in rates would enable the competitors—and he hinted that it was hauliers, though he recognises they are not in the picture now—to challenge the rate. He will remember that there are three serious hurdles to overcome: that the rate is below the maximum; that if persisted in it would result in loss to the Commission, which carries with it the assumption that the Commission will have to raise it after the competition has been eliminated; and, also, that it is designed to eliminate competition.

If this country, with its great maritime tradition, is not prepared to give this slight protection, which I hope will be abandoned and which very likely will not be necessary—because I believe the harmony between the Commission and coastal shipping is genuine—then we ought to start thinking again about a great many other things.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Holt

What the Minister has said about Section 39 of the Act of 1933 is important. Does he say that the Government now intend to move away from what has been the principle throughout this Bill, that various sections of transport shall not subsidise other sections? If there is any question of coastal shipping not being able to maintain itself in this new competitive system, does he not agree that direct grants from the Government would be far more suitable than some protection which in effect involves subsidisation from the railways or some other form of transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The way to help an industry is not to try to sterilise an existing situation which may be passing away and which ought not to be artificially preserved. We live at present under the 1933 Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party want to sweep the whole of it away. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that that was anarchy and that I was in a state of chaos. On that occasion the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) preferred me.

We do not propose to alter that law in the sense of weakening it; we might strengthen it. I share the view that the proper way in which to help the industry is the open way of helping it and not the prevention of the natural development of transport. But in this limited field, realising how much we depend on coastal shipping in war, we have sometimes to depart from pure Gladstonian theory and to look at facts.

Mr. Callaghan

I see the point which the Minister is stressing, though I do not wholly accept it. What I might call the Commission's docks and harbours ought to be open to challenge by the private docks and harbours which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) represents. I put this point. The railway docks nave substantial complaints against the private docks. Why is the Minister not taking power here to give the Commission's docks and harbours, which have a really substantial grievance on some of these matters, protection against the private docks and harbours which the hon. Member for Paddington, South represents? They are not private enterprise, so the Minister need not think that he has to protect them against the Commission. They are, for the most part, public trusts. Will he not give the Commission's docks and harbours the same rights as he is giving to the others?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am surprised that that point was not seen by the draftsmen who prepared the Opposition Amendments. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper covering that. We will certainly look at that position in our reconsideration of this Clause. I hope that on Report we might form something like a council of State to discuss the new Clause.

Sir Frank Soskice (Sheffield, Neepsend)

I confess that I feel in a state of some confusion after hearing the reply of the Government to the arguments that we on this side of the Committee have adduced. What seems to be pellucidly clear is that when the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," the Minister will vote against it. I assume that I have his agreement to that statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd


Sir F. Soskice

The right hon. Gentleman says, "No," so he intends to support the Clause. That being so, we have no alternative but to debate the Clause as it stands. I must address some criticisms to the Committee, because this is one of the most defective Clauses that I have ever seen. The Minister, in explaining that he did not very much like his own Clause a few minutes ago, said nevertheless that it had the good feature that those who wished to challenge the Commission had to surmount three hurdles.

First, they had to show that the charges were less than the maximum. The second hurdle was that they had to show that the charging of such low charges must result in a loss to the Commission. The third and final hurdle was that they had to show that these charges were fixed in order to eliminate competition.

In point of fact, if that was what the Minister meant, his Clause does nothing of the sort. The complainants, the road hauliers and the coastal shipping interests have got to prove precisely nothing. All they have got to say, according to the first line of this Clause, is that they are of a certain opinion. They may go to the Tribunal and simply state that they are of the opinion that these three hurdles have been surmounted by them. The Minister nods very complacently, but surely he must realise that there is all the difference in the world between having to prove that these three qualifications are complied with and simply saying that one is of the opinion that they are complied with?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

This gives the right to the complainant to get the door open into the Tribunal, and, if the Tribunal finds that no proof is given, the Tribunal can tell him to go away.

Sir F. Soskice

What the Clause does is this. It says that any interest that wishes to cavil at the charges the Commission are making has simply got to go to the Tribunal and assert, as a fact, that it is of that opinion. The road haulier, if it is a case of road haulage, or the coastal shipping interest, as the case may be, is not obliged to prove anything. All they need say is, "I have not come to prove that these charges are made for the purpose of eliminating competition; all I have got to say is that I think they are." The words of the Clause are: Where, in the opinion of a person carrying on business as a carrier of goods for hire or reward"— these three qualifications are satisfied. The first one is that the charges are less than the maximum charges; the second, that they will involve a loss; and the third, that they are for the purpose of eliminating competition.

That really does put the Commission completely and absolutely at the mercy of any conflicting private interest in the first instance, in that that is all that that interest has to do in order to put the Commission in the dock. That is what it comes to. One would have thought that, if it was so easy for a road haulage or any other private interest to get the Commission into the dock, the Clause would proceed to say what the Tribunal could do, under what conditions it could do it and what was the extent of its powers, but the Clause does nothing of the sort.

What happens? The road haulier says, "I think the Commission are trying to eliminate competition by charging low rates." If we look at the Clause, we find that the Tribunal can make any order it likes, not an order limited in any possible way. Nothing has to be proved or established, but the Commission can be brought before the Tribunal by the ipse dixit of a road haulier, and the Tribunal can do what it likes. There is no limit to its discretion. Nothing has to be proved in limiting the alterations which it can make in the charges which the Commission make. This is the most inequitable Clause that I have seen in any Bill ever drafted, and I am certainly not surprised that the Minister now sees that it cannot remain in its present form.

But the changes which the Minister proposes to make, so far as I understand them, are really not going to improve it at all. What he is to do is simply this. Instead of the road haulier, the coastal shipper or the other private interest concerned—each of them—being entitled to drag the Commission before the Tribunal by their own ipse dixit, they are all to be allowed to do that, except the road haulier, and that is a very limited change and will not go any part of the way towards making the Clause fair. It will still preserve the same inequitable features which it now possesses.

The only way in which we can attempt to make it fair is if we say that, supposing a coastal shipper wants to hail the Commission before the Tribunal, equally it can also hail before the Tribunal competing road haulage interests. Supposing we assume a certain volume of traffic to go by ship, rail or road. What we ought to say, in my respectful submission, is that, if a shipper thinks he is unfairly dealt with, he should be able to go to the Tribunal and say, "The Commission is a competitor of mine charging low rates"; or he should be able equally to say, "So is a road haulier a competitor of mine for this traffic and he is charging low rates," and the Tribunal should be able to make exactly the same sort of order against a competing road haulier interest as the Clause enables it to make against the Commission.

I do not mean to say this offensively, but the Minister's statement was about the vaguest that I have heard from him. He is generally very clear in debate. So far as I understand his statement, he proposes to leave the matter in the situation that it is simply the shipper who is to be allowed to get the Commission before the Tribunal, and once the Commission is before it, the Tribunal can do anything it likes against the Commission but still cannot touch the road haulier. This is not only about the most inequitable but the most clumsily drawn Clause in this Bill, and that is saying a great deal. Obviously the Minister has not given it proper thought, and in re-casting it he ought to make it fair.

If there is traffic which can go by road, rail or coastal shipping, and if one wants to ensure that there is competition on fair lines—and that is the whole purpose of this Bill as I understand it—one must have equal powers against road hauliers as against the Commission, and in their new form the powers are still to be against the Commission and the road haulage is not to be touched. That is wanton discrimination against the Commission. It is that which inspires the whole of this Bill—an attempt to get the Commission down and to lift road haulage in opposition to it.

The Minister said earlier that he thought it was his duty as a Parliamentarian to listen to the arguments that are advanced, and I am quite sure that he does that. If he is going to try to recast this Clause, I sincerely ask that he does it so as to result in the Commission being on a roughly equal footing with the road haulage interests with which it has to compete. This Clause puts the Commission at a serious disadvantage. If the Minister gets the Clause at all, I ask him to put it on a fair basis. He should try to insert in it some terms of reference to the Tribunal to say what it is allowed to do and not allowed to do, and he must give equal recourse for those who complain against road haulage interests as to those who complain against the Commission; otherwise this provision will be topsy-turvy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should like, straight away to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) for his valuable and courteous intervention. The arguments against putting some obligation upon an industry which will be largely based upon a large number of small units are overwhelming, and the difficulties that applied in previous Clauses would apply equally here. But I am impressed by the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used about the fact that it might be argued that the Tribunal is not given clear guidance, and we might look at such words as "upon reasonable proof of such complaint." If words of that kind had formed the subject of earlier Amendments, we might have been able to accept them.

The Tribunal of which we are now talking is a Tribunal of responsible people to whom we pass the final decision

on freight and passenger charges all over the United Kingdom, and to talk as if its members are likely frivolously to arrive at a conclusion because it is not made absolutely clear on every point what are the criteria is not expecting a very good service from such a distinguished body.

Sir F. Soskice

I do not suggest that they would be wanting in the exercise of discretion, but that they themselves have a right to complain that they are given absolutely no guidance in the Bill as to what they are to do.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

We will look at it again and it may be that such words as "upon reasonable proof of such complaint" may serve. If it be thought that this may be tightened up more adequately, I will gladly do so. I hope nobody below the Gangway will say that there is any weakness in saying "thank you" for the suggestion.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 281.

Division No. 56.] AYES [10.15 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Chetwynd, G. R Freeman, John (Watford)
Adams, Richard Clunie, J. Gatiskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Albu, A. H. Coldrick, W. Gibson, C. W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Collick, P. H. Glanville, James
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Gooch, E. G.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Cove, W. G. Gordon Walker, Rt Hon. P. C
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Awbery, S. S. Crosland, C. A. R. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Bacon, Miss Alice Daines, P. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Baird, J. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Grey, C. F.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bartley, P. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hale, Leslie
Bence, C. R. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Benn, Wedgwood de Freitas, Geoffrey Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Benson, G. Deer, G. Hamilton, W. W.
Beswick, F. Delargy, H. J. Hannan, W.
Bing, G. H. C. Dodds, N. N. Hardy, E. A.
Blackburn, F. Donnelly, D. L. Hargreaves, A.
Blyton, W. R. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Boardman, H. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hastings, S.
Bottomley, Rt Hon. A. G. Edelman, M. Hayman, F. H.
Bowden, H. W. Edwards, John (Brighouse) Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Bowles, F. G. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Herbison, Miss M.
Brockway, A. F. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hewitson, Capt. M
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Hobson, C. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Holman, P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Ewart, R. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Fernyhough, E. Houghton, Douglas
Burke, W. A. Field, W. J. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Burton, Miss F. E Fienburgh, W. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Finch, H J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Callaghan, L. J. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Carmichael, J. Follick, M. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Foot, M. M. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Champion, A. J. Forman, J. C. Irving, W. J (Wood Green)
Chapman, W. D. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Janner, B. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. O'Brien, T Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Jeger, George (Goole) Oldfield, W. H. Swingler, S. T.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Oliver, G. H. Sylvester, G. O.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Orbach, M. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Oswald, T. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Padley, W. E. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Paget, R. T. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Keenan, W. Palmer, A. M. F. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Kenyon, C. Pannell, Charles Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W Pargiter, G. A. Thornton, E.
King, Dr. H. M. Parker, J. Thurtle, Ernest
Kinley, J. Paton, J. Timmons, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Pearson, A. Tomney, F.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pearl, T. F. Turner-Samuels, M.
Lewis, Arthur Plummer, Sir Leslie Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Lindgren, G. S. Popplewell, E. Viant, S. P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Porter, G. Wallace, H. W.
Logan, D. G. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Watkins, T. E.
MacColl, J. E. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
McGhee, H. G. Proctor, W. T. Weitzman, D.
McInnes, J. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Rankin, John Wells, William (Walsall)
McLeavy, F. Reid, Thomas (Swindon) West, D. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Reid, William (Camlachie) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Rhodes, H. Wheeldon, W. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean Ross, William Wigg, George
Manuel, A. C. Royle, C. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mayhew, C. P. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wilkins, W. A.
Mellish, R. J. Short, E. W. Willey, F. T.
Messer, F. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Williams, David (Neath)
Mikardo, Ian Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Mitchison, G. R. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Monslow, W. Slater, J. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Moody, A. S. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Morley, R. Snow, J. W. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Sorensen, R. W. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mort, D. L. Sparks, J. A. Wyatt, W. L.
Moyle, A. Steele, T. Yates, V. F.
Mulley, F. W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Murray, J. D. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Nally, W. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Mr. Kenneth Robinson and
Mr. Arthur Allen.
Aitken, W. T. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Cuthbert, W. N.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Alport, C. J. M. Brooman-White, R. C. Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Browne, Jack (Govan) Deedes, W. F.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Digby, S. Wingfield
Arbuthnot, John Bullard, D. G. Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Bullock, Capt. M. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Doughty, C. J. A.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Burden, F. F. A. Drayson, G. B.
Baldwin, A. E. Butcher, H. W. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Banks, Col. C. Campbell, Sir David Duthie, W. S.
Barber, Anthony Carr, Robert Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Barlow, Sir John Carson, Hon. E. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Cary, Sir Robert Erroll, F. J.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Channon, H. Fell, A.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Finlay, Graeme
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Fisher, Nigel
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Cole, Norman Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bennett, William (Woodside) Colegale, W. A. Fort, R.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Foster, John
Birch, Nigel Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bishop, F. P. Cooper-Key, E. M. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Black, C. W. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Bossom, A. C. Cranborne, Viscount Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Boyle, Sir Edward Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Gammans, L. D.
Braine, B. R. Crouch, R. F. Garner-Evans, E. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Godber, J. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Roper, Sir Harold
Gough, C. F. H. McAdden, S. J. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Gower, H. R. McCallum, Major D. Russell, R. S.
Graham, Sir Fergus McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Gridley, Sir Arnold Macdonald, Sir Peter Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Grimond, J. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) McKibbin, A. J. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Scott, R. Donald
Harden, J. R. E. Maclean, Fitzroy Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Shepherd, William
Harris, Reader (Heston) MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)
Hay, John Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Snadden, W. McN.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Markham, Major S. F. Soames, Capt. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel Marlowe, A. A. H. Speir, R. M.
Heath, Edward Marples, A. E. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C. Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Stevens, G. P.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Maudling, R. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey Medlicott, Brig. F. Storey, S.
Holland-Martin, C. J Mellor, Sir John Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hollis, M. C. Molson, A. H. E. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Holt, A. F. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Studholme, H. G.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Morrison, John (Salisbury) Summers, G. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Sutcliffe, H.
Horobin, I. M. Nabarro, G. D. N. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Nicholls, Harmer Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Teeling, W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Nield, Basil (Chester) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hurd, A. R. Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Nugent, G. R. H. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Nutting, Anthony Tilney, John
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Oakshott, H. D. Turner, H. F. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Odey, G. W. Turton, R. H.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Vane, W. M. F
Jennings, R. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Vosper, D. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Wade, D. W.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Osborne, C. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Peake, Rt. Hon. O Walker-Smith, D. C.
Kaberry, D. Perkins, W. R. D. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Keeling, Sir Edward Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Kerr, H. W. Peyton, J. W. W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lambert, Hon. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Watkinson, H. A.
Lambton, Viscount Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pitman, I. J. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Powell, J. Enoch Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Profumo, J. D. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Raikes, H. V. Wills, G.
Linstead, H. N. Rayner, Brig. R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Llewellyn, D. T. Redmayne, M. Wood, Hon. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Remnant, Hon. P. York, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Renton, D. L. M.
Longden, Gilbert Robertson, Sir David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Low, A. R. W. Robson-Brown, W. Mr. Drewe and
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Mr. Richard Thompson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Callaghan

We have now reached the stage where we are able to debate for first time since the Guillotine last fell, the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Now that the supporters of the Government have assembled for the first time today, no doubt because they scent blood, and because there is a Division on the way, they might as well know—and the Prime Minister, I know, will be interested to hear this, because he is the great guardian of our constitutional liberties and will want to see justice done —that we have reached the second Clause out of four that were set down in the very attenuated time at our disposal.

Mr. Powell

The Opposition had no Amendments to the other two Clauses.

The Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Callaghan

The Minister's supporters now not only want to Guillotine us. but also to prevent us from speaking.

We have reached the second Clause out of four set down for discussion in the period of three hours that is allotted to this debate. The Minister came to us halfway through the discussion, and said, "Please do not go on talking about this Clause because I intend to re-write it." It is a bad, sloppy Clause and we were asked to cut short our discussion on it because it was so badly written that we had to talk about something which was not in the Bill.

Mr. Powell


Mr. Callaghan

I fully understand that the Government benches have a bad conscience about this Bill, but at least they might let us voice our protest that a Bill which merits serious discussion because it is so bad should at least be discussed

reasonably without the Guillotine, which is making a mockery of Parliamentary debate.

Let there be no doubt that the time which has been given us has been completely inadequate, even though we have guillotined ourselves and rationed ourselves very severely in the speeches which have been made. At one time, on this particular Clause, we were discussing 14 or 15 Amendments at once. On a previous Clause the Minister asked us to discuss—

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

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

The Committee divided: Ayes. 279: Noes, 266.

Division No. 57.] AYES [10.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Harden, J. R. E.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Hare, Hon. J. H.
Alport, C. J. M. Cooper-Key, E. M. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Cranborne, Viscount Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Arbuthnot, John Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Crouch, R. F. Hay, John
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Baldwin, A. E. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Heald, Sir Lionel
Banks, Col. C. Cuthbert, W. N. Heath, Edward
Barber, Anthony Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Barlow, Sir John Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Higgs, J. M. C.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Deedes, W. F. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Digby, S. Wingfield Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Dodds Parker, A. D. Hirst, Geoffrey
Bell, Ronald (Buoks, S.) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Doughty, C. J. A. Hollis, M. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Drayson, G. B. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bennett, William (Woodside) Drewe, C. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Horobin, I. M.
Birch, Nigel Duthie, W. S. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bishop, F. P. Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Black, C. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bossom, A. C. Erroll, F. J. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Fell, A. Hurd, A. R.
Boyle, Sir Edward Finlay, Graeme Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Braine, B. R. Fisher, Nigel Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Fletcher-Cooke, C Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Fort, R. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Foster, John Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Brooman-White, R. C. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Jennings, R.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bullard, D. G. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Bullock, Capt. M. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Gammans, L. D. Kaberry, D.
Burden, F. F. A. Garner-Evans, E. H. Keeling, Sir Edward
Campbell, Sir David George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Kerr, H. W.
Carr, Robert Godber, J. B. Lambert, Hon. G.
Carson, Hon. E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lambton, Viscount
Cary, Sir Robert Gough, C. F. H. Lancaster, Col. C. G
Channon, H. Gower, H. R. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Graham, Sir Fergus Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Gridley, Sir Arnold Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Cole, Norman Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Colegate, W. A. Hall, John (Wycombe) Linstead, H. N.
Llewellyn, D. T. Oakshott, H. D. Speir, R. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Odey, G. W. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Longden, Gilbert Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Stevens, G. P.
Low, A. R. W. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Storey, S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Osborne, C. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
McAdden, S. J. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. Stuart, Rt Hon. James (Moray)
McCallum, Major D. Perkins, W. R. D. Summers, G. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Peto, Brig. C. H. M Sutcliffe, H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter Peyton, J. W. W. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
McKibbin, A. J. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Teeling, W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Pitman, I. J. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Powell, J. Enoch Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Maclean, Fitzroy Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Profumo, J. D. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Raikes, H. V. Tilney, John
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Rayner, Brig. R. Turner, H. F. L.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Redmayne, M. Turton, R. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Remnant, Hon. P. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Renton, D. L. M. Vane, W. M. F.
Markham, Major S. F. Robertson, Sir David Vosper, D. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Robson-Brown, W. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Marples, A. E. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Roper, Sir Harold Walker-Smith, D. C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Maudling, R. Russell, R. S. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Watkinson, H. A.
Mellor, Sir John Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Malson, A. H. E. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas White, Baker (Canterbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Scott, R. Donald Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Shepherd, William Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Nicholls, Harmar Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wills, G.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Wood, Hon. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) York, C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Nugent, G. R. H. Snadden, W. McN. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Nutting, Anthony Soames, Capt. C. Mr. Butcher and Mr. Studholme.
Acland, Sir Richard Callaghan, L. J Fernyhough, E.
Adams, Richard Carmichael, J. Field, W. J.
Albu, A. H. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Fienburgh, W
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Champion, A. J. Finch, H. J.
Allen, Seholefield (Crewe) Chapman, W. D. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Chetwynd, G. R Follick, M.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Clunie, J. Foot, M. M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Coldrick, W. Forman, J. C.
Awbery, S. S. Collick, P. H. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Corbet, Mrs. Freda Freeman, John (Watford)
Baird, J. Cove, W. G. Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Bartley, P. Crosland, C. A. R. Gibson, C. W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Dalnes, P. Glanville, James
Bence, C. R. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Gooch, E. G.
Bonn, Wedgwood Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Benson, G. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Beswick, F. Davies, Harold (Leek) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Bing, G. H. C. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Blackburn, F. de Freitas, Geoffrey Grey, C. F.
Blenkinsop, A. Deer, G. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Blyton, W. R. Delargy, H. J. Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Boardman, H. Dodds, N. N. Grimond, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Donnelly, D. L. Hale, Leslie
Bowles, F. G. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Brockway, A. F. Edelman, M. Hamilton, W. W.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Edwards, John (Brighouse) Hannan, W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hardy, E. A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Hargreaves, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Burke, W. A. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Hastings, S.
Burton, Miss F. E. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Hayman, F. H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Ewart, R. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Herbison, Miss M. Morley, R. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hobson, C. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Holman, P. Mort, D. L. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Moyle, A. Summerskill, Rt. Hon E
Holt, A. F. Mulley, F. W Swingler, S. T.
Houghton, Douglas Murray, J. D. Sylvester, G. O.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Nally, W. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) O'Brien, T. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Oldfield, W. H. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oliver, G. H. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Orbach, M. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Oswald, T. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Janner, B. Padley, W. E. Thornton, E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Paget, R. T. Thurtle, Ernest
Jeger, George (Goole) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Timmons, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Tomney, F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Palmer, A. M. F. Turner-Samuels, M.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pannell, Charles Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Pargiter, G. A. Viant, S. P.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Parker, J. Wade, D. W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Paton, J. Wallace, H. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pearson, A. Watkins, T. E.
Keenan, W. Peart, T. F. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Kenyon, C. Plummer, Sir Leslie Weitzman, D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Popplewell, E. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
King, Dr. H. M Porter, G. Wells, William (Walsall)
Kinley, J. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) West, D. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Proctor, W. T. Wheeldon, W. E.
Lewis, Arthur Pursey, Cmdr. H. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Lindgren, G. S. Rankin, John White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Logan, D. G. Reid, William (Camlachie) Wigg, George
MacColl, J. E. Rhodes, H. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
McGhee, H. G. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wilkins, W. A.
McInnes, J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Willey, F. T.
McKay, John (Wallsend) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Williams, David (Neath)
McLeavy, F. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlillery)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Ross, William Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Shackleton, E. A. A. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Short, E. W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Grigg) Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Manuel, A. C. Slater, J. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Mayhew, C. P. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Wyatt, W. L.
Mellish, R. J. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Yates, V. F.
Messer, F. Snow, J. W. Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Mikardo, Ian Sorensen, R. W.
Mitchison, G. R. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Monslow, W. Sparks, J. A. Mr. Bowden and Mr. Royle.
Moody, A. S. Steele, T.

Resolution reported, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education in England and Wales and to make further provision with respect to the duties of education authorities in Scotland as to dental treatment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to provisions (including retrospective provisions) of the said Act of the present Session—

  1. (a) extending the definition of "displaced pupils" for the purposes of section one hundred and four of the Education Act, 1944, to include pupils who have moved in consequence of action or proposed action under housing or town and country planning powers;
  2. (b) extending the cases in which a local education authority may be required to defray the whole or any part of the cost incurred in the establishment or enlargement of a controlled school;
  3. (c) relating to the provision of free dental treatment;
  4. (d) relating to the provision by local education authorities of primary and secondary education at schools not maintained by such authorities;
  5. (e) substituting, for the powers of the Minister under sections one hundred and three and one hundred and four of the said Act of 1944 to make grants in certain cases for the construction of schools, powers in the like cases to make grants for the provision of school sites and buildings;
  6. 1583
  7. (f) extending the definition of "initial expenses" for the purpose of the Minister's power to make loans to school managers or governors under section one hundred and five of the said Act of 1944; and
  8. (g) empowering a local education authority to provide clothing for pupils receiving special educational treatment in pursuance of arrangements made by the authority.

Resolution agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'Clock.