§ Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)
I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, to leave out paragraph (b).
So that the Committee may follow the case I wish to put before it, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the new Clause—"London Passenger Transport Board"—on page 300 of the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends and myself. This new Clause is relevant to this particular Amendment, and begins:All property in the possession of the London Transport Executive under the scheme of delegation from the British Transport Commission shall be transferred to a body corporate to be known as the London Passenger Transport Board.Whatever the merits or demerits of this proposition, I do not propose to argue it at any length on the technical question of whether, assuming that we went back to a separate London Transport Board, we should get sufficient co-ordination between that Board and the new set-up that is going to run the railways. Under the system that existed before the 1947 Act, there was a joint co-ordinating board set 1697 up between the main line railway companies and the then London Passenger Transport Board. I am advised that that liaison machinery worked just as well as any similar arrangement made since. In fact, under the 1947 Act that liaison machinery was done away with, and the Commission have had to set up non-statutory liaison machinery of their own to fill in the gap.
Whatever the arguments for or against this proposition on those particular grounds, I do not propose to go into them, but rather to concentrate on two other points. I would remind the Committee of a point of historical interest which is that for many years the railways of the London Passenger Transport Board always found it very difficult to make ends meet. In fact, they failed to provide sufficient money with which to pay the full rate of interest on the junior L.P.T.B. "C" stock, and one of the reasons for the original monopoly being given to them was in order that the buses which paid could help to support the tubes which did not pay.
I propose to deal with this matter from two other aspects which, I suggest, are equally as important as the organisational one. They are, firstly, the question of responsibility, or lack of responsibility, of the London Transport Executive at the moment for the financial success of their undertaking, with some of the dire results that it has had during the recent years, and, secondly, the misconceptions in the minds of the public, both in the country at large and in London, as to whether London Passenger Transport is subsidising the rest of the country, or vice versa.
On the financial side, my information is that there is a general feeling among transport people that the technicians under the London Transport Executive have got their head and are in control. Some substance would seem to be given to that if only by the remarks often made in this House that the London buses are the finest in the world. That in itself may be a very commendable thing and something to which no one should take exception, provided that the financial results at the end of the year are as good as those of other companies who do not set the same high technical standards.
Let us see what has happened in regard to fares. Up to the end of 1951, 1698 the increase above pre-war in the fares of the main line railway was 77 per cent., whereas in the case of London Transport it was only 43 per cent. Now, the increase in the rest of the country is 90 per cent. above pre-war whereas the increase in London represents only 71 per cent.
When considering this matter, one should realise that the railway side of the London Transport Executive has a capital value of something like £105 million. As we all know, last year the railway side made a net profit of just over £500,000, which represents a return of just under ½ per cent. on what might be termed its capital. On the other hand, the road services, which, of course, had never previously made a loss, showed a loss of £2 million during the same period.
It is as well to observe what is said in the Fourth Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1951 in relation to this question. On page 20 of the Report there are diagrams showing the surpluses and deficits of the London Transport road services and the London Transport rail services for the years 1948–51 inclusive, from which it will be seen that the road services went down each year until last year there was a deficit, and that the rail services also went down slightly each year, although in their case the surpluses were very small.
It is as well to notice in this connection that on page 26 of the Report there is a list of the various charges per mile for the various categories of transport. The ordinary fare of the London Transport Central bus in December, 1951, was 1¼d. per mile, whereas the fares of bus services such as Tillings or the Scottish were less. The fare charged by the London Transport Green Line service was 1.32d. per mile.
One would expect that in some cases charges in London would be higher than in other parts of the country, but whatever the London charges might be, I do not think there can be any question that London must stand by itself.
All these results and the trouble over the fare increases at the beginning of the year have created many misconceptions in people's minds, and as recently as 11th November Lord Latham, chairman of the London Transport Executive, thought it necessary to write a letter to "The Times" explaining that although there 1699 had been these increases in fares in London they were not subsidising the rest of the country. He took considerable trouble over the matter and he pointed out that… it is essential that any impression to the contrary should be removed.After explaining a lot of figures, some of which appear to me to be wrong, he stated:It follows that passengers who use the London Transport services are still paying less—not more—than the cost of providing these services.I feel that all this is largely brought about by the fact that the financial responsibility for the results of trading at the end of the year have been removed from London Transport Executive. Where they were with the old Board they have now been removed to the Commission, and the position is made worse by the functional nature of the present Executive. Those in charge have their own departments which they wish to build up. They say "Yes, yes," and there is nobody saying "No" where there is some question of capital expenditure on a desirable development which everybody wants but which costs money.
The Executive themselves appear to be rather stronger on this matter than the Commission. If the Commission were tough enough the present policy might work, but it is not working and we have seen the results. It may be one thing and a quite desirable thing to subsidise the Highlands, but I suggest that it is quite a different thing for Lanarkshire, Yorkshire and other parts of the country to subsidise London. I do not see that this problem will ever be adequately solved unless London is placed once again under a separate board. That is the purpose of the Amendment and of the new Clause, which appears on a later page of the Order Paper.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
I do not propose to speak at length on the Amendment, but it might be useful if I make clear the attitude of the official Opposition to it. I confess that until I heard the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) I could not quite understand why proposals regarding London transport should emanate from Bolton. But I gather that the reason why he wants to put London Transport Executive back into the position of the old London 1700 Transport Board is because he considers that at present London is being subsidised by some of his constituents.
We oppose this Amendment because we do not think that London transport would gain in any way if it were segregated from the Transport Commission now that it has been absorbed within it. I think that London is a special case because it is the centre of the United Kingdom and as a metropolis attracts people from all over the country. And if at present on occasions there is some subsidisation of London Transport by the rest of the transport system, it can be fully justified on those grounds.
I thought that the hon. Member for Bolton, West was a little unfair to London Transport Executive in the criticisms which he made. The London Transport system is accepted as the finest in the world at the present time. Foreigners who come here are invariably full of admiration for our transport service and the efficiency with which London transport operates. It has always had great difficulties to face but has succeeded in overcoming a great number of them. If it had not been for the imaginative proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in the 1929–31 Parliament, and if he had not conceived this particular type of Board, London today certainly would not have as efficient a transport service as it has, nor would the system be in the same financial position.
Because of the integration of London transport the increase in costs has been far higher than the rise in fares, and at the end of 1951 fares had only gone up by 71 per cent., whereas costs had gone up by 120 per cent., the gap having been met by the economies and greater efficiency which had become possible. To a certain extent the increased efficiency of London Transport has been due in recent years to its absorption within the Transport Commission as a whole.
I should remind the hon. Member for Bolton, West that the reconstruction of the finances of London Transport, which have taken place as a result of the Transport Act, 1947, has reduced its transport charges very substantially. As a result of the reconstruction of the capital, the Commission stock was substituted for the old 1701 London Transport Board stock. That has meant that the contribution it has to make to the central fund is not as large as was the interest which it had to pay on the old stock, although London Transport was never able to meet its full obligations on that old stock. If that change had not taken place one fears what would have happened. There was some threat of receivership, and capital reconstruction would have been necessary.
There are several reasons why it is preferable that the London Transport Executive should remain and should not be segregated from the Commission. The chief reason is that it works in co-operation with the suburban lines, and it is not possible to separate the organisation and operation of the London Transport system from that of suburban railways. Before the Transport Commission came into being, there was, of course, a pooling system between the two, but better organisation and closer co-operation has been possible as a result of association with the Commission.
I express a hope, therefore, that the Minister will not accept the Amendment which has been moved and will leave London Transport as it is. I regret very much that the only action which is being taken with regard to London Transport in this Bill is one which would put it in a worse position. That is, it is being deprived of the right to operate contract carriages. We only had a truncated discussion on that, owing to the Guillotine. It means a quite unjustified loss to London Transport. Here there is in operation competition which, we are frequently told, it is the purpose of this Bill to increase. But when there is competition between private enterprise and a public service, as there is in this case, the Minister puts an end to it. Apart from that, the Bill does not touch London Transport, as far as I can see, and for that we are grateful. We suggest that there should be no further interference with it.
§ Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South)
I do not expect that my right lion. Friend the Minister of Transport will find himself in a position to accept the Amendment, but I should like to draw his attention to this matter. I do not share the complacency of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about the position of London Transport.
1702 My whole object is to ask the House at some time to consider the peculiar difficulties of London with a view to helping the Transport Executive. I am not pressing for its segregation now, but I am quite certain that at some time or other in the ensuing years it will be necessary to pay special attention to the financial and traffic problems of London.
I should declare my interest in this matter. Although my constituency is nearly 40 miles from London, it is served by the London Transport Executive and, as I have said before in the House, my constituents have a very personal interest in this matter. The London Transport area, as is not generally known by most people, goes a very great way beyond London. It is a very large undertaking covering a very large area. Nevertheless it does take its life blood from the core of London as we know it, and this core is in a peculiar and particular position which is rather more complicated than was made out by the hon. Member for Enfield, East.
That position is made up of four particular difficulties. Firstly, the surroundings of London are a dormitory area for some eight million people who work there. That is a problem which has no parallel anywhere in the world, and it raises particular difficulties.
The second point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, is that London is the capital city of the Empire and, as such—and to our pride—provides facilities in the form of a transport service which we are happy to have our visitors see and use. But the financial burden of the provision of those facilities falls upon the people living in and around London and, since the benefit of those facilities is enjoyed by the whole population of these islands, it is not fair that the whole of the expense should be borne by the people of London.
Thirdly, there is the well-known fact that the cost of living is higher for those who work and live in and around London as compared with the rest of the population. London has special traffic problems, and I feel that any consideration of those problems should take into account the domestic financial position of the people who live and work in London.
The fourth point, which is most important, is that the railway undertakings, particularly under the new regions, are 1703 able to help any passenger traffic losses by means of their freight traffic; but the London Transport system has no such advantages because it does not carry freight. I am not suggesting that it would be practicable for it to do so. London is the focus of the main line stations, and I do not think it would be possible to introduce a freight system for the London Transport Executive. But I think that fact should be borne in mind in any review of the position of London.
Finally, I would refer to the question whether or not the London Transport Executive should be included in the British Transport Commission. There is no urban undertaking of the size of the London Transport Executive which is contained within the ambit of the British Transport Commission, and if we are to have the unique position of an undertaking of this size—the largest in the world—necessarily being brought into a nationalised undertaking, we should make a careful review of the position in which it finds itself.
I am quite certain that whatever may be the truth of whether London subsidises the rest of the country or the rest of the country subsidises London—if either of those statements be true, and I am not quoting figures to prove either of them—I am quite certain that there is justification for an inquiry. It may leave the position as it is now, but I am certain that the average person in or near London is not satisfied with what is happening at the present time.
I am sure that at some future time we could look into the position of these two undertakings—the British Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive—to the benefit of the population as a whole. I do not press the Minister in support of the hon. Member's Amendment. I think the proposed new Clause might go too far, but I should like his Ministry to address their attention to these problems in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)
There are many important Amendments to be discussed in this sector of our arrangements, and I hope the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) will not think me discourteous if I do not reply at great length on this Amendment. He and his friends 1704 attempted to raise this matter on Clause 14, but they were prevented from doing so under the procedure which is now operating. The hon. Member has now had an opportunity to deploy the argument in favour of his point of view.
If carried, this Amendment would prevent any re-organisation scheme of the B.T.C. railways dealing with any part of the passenger services at present operated by the London Transport Executive, and if it were accepted by the Committee it would greatly handicap, if not entirely rule out, any future adjustment of services between the big main line railways and the London Transport system.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) at once that on this matter, anyhow, the minds of the Government and the Opposition are attuned, though possibly for very different reasons. Our reason has been reiterated over and over again. This may be my last opportunty of referring to it—this being the last day of the Committee stage—but I think it is worth repetition even at this late hour.
In this Bill Her Majesty's Government have two main objectives—the return of long-distance road haulage to private hands and the de-centralisation of the railways of the British Transport Commission. It is not part of our policy to subject the Commission to any disruption or dislocation beyond what is necessary to obtain those two objectives. The deletion of this paragraph would have the general effect of restoring the position under the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933 and it would divorce London financially and in all other respects from the operations of the British Transport Commission.
Quite apart from anything else, this would immediately raise extremely complex financial implications. All the elaborate arrangements which were made under the 1933 Act—and no one is more familiar with those than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was responsible in some degree at least for its initiation—for the pooling of receipts and their apportionment would have to be revived now in the year 1953 in a more complicated form.
It was never our intention under this Bill to disturb the London Transport Executive and for that reason I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
§ Mr. Holt
All the three speeches which have been made have only confirmed me in my view that what will be required in the future, if it is not done now, is the running of London Transport by a separate statutory body.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) did nothing but make an apology for the fact that London is subsidised by the rest of the country. The same thing was done by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). I do not want to delay the Committee, as I know there are many other important things to discuss, but I would say that if the Minister will not accept this Amendment I hope he will, if he has not done so already, come to the conclusion that he can do much that I would like to see done in the present setup and will see that under the new reorganisation scheme the financial responsibility is put back on the London Transport Executive as much as possible, so that they really are responsible for making both ends meet at the end of the year.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I am wondering whether it would be considered possible to discuss together the various Amendments concerning the composition of the Commission, and whether there would be any advantage in that.
§ The Chairman
What I had intended to do was to call the present Amendment together with the one immediately before it, in line 14, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), but that Amendment has not been moved. I think the next three Amendments, in lines 15, 18 and 19 should go together, and with the Amendment in line 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) should go the Amendments in lines 25 and 26, the two in line 27, that in line 28, the two in line 29 and that in line 34, all of which follow one another. If that would be for the convenience of the Committee, I think we could cover the whole field in one discussion.
§ Mr. Callaghan
That would be for the convenience of the Committee, and again I must ask for the clemency of the Committee because there is an important issue which comes immediately after this Amendment, and I know that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is doing his best to assist us.
§ Mr. Holt
I think the whole point of this Amendment and the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was brought about by the suggestion that there would possibly be no Executives, and in that event it is felt fairly widely that there must be a considerably larger board to run the railways and their ancillary undertakings. If the number is made up to 14—here again, I agree there is nothing sacrosanct about 14—then it would be possible for the Commission to divide themselves up from time to time into sub-committees to concentrate on some particular line of transport. Possibly they might be standing committees. A committee might be set up for a particular purpose, but if the Commission is left only to the number of 10, it might not be large enough. The fact that some of the Amendments to be discussed are concerned with the types of people who should be brought into this board, adds strength to the argument that it should be considerably increased in number.
If it is the desire of the Committee to indicate our attitude towards this narrow issue before we get to the wider one, we shall be happy to do so, but my right hon. Friend feels he would like to hear the general discussion on this composition of the Commission before coming to a decision on this particular point about its numerical sides. It should be quite possible to make a statement on that on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)
I beg to move, in page 32, line 15, to leave out paragraph (b).
Perhaps it might assist the Minister in considering the last Amendment, which was withdrawn, if I say that in principle we would be disposed to favour it. I see the Minister's point that it might be more easy for him to pick up the threads and make a general statement on this issue when he has heard the full discussion on these Amendments. I am moving the first of the three Amendments which are to be taken together, the other two being in lines 18 and 19.
The point that is raised here is the question of the minimum provision of full-time members. In the 1947 Act it was provided that the chairman and not fewer than four members of the British Transport Commission should be full-time. That left elasticity and discretion for the Minister to decide who should be full-time. In fact, at this moment it is a mixed body of full-time and part-time members.
I favour the doctrine of a mixed body of that character, because I think it is right that there should be an element of full-time and part-time members, the latter bringing in experience from outside to prevent the Commission becoming too monastic and to bring a breath of fresh air into the Commission's proceedings from outside. I regard it as part of the duty of the part-time members to be critical of the administration, including the full-time members. Therefore, I feel that the doctrine of full-time and part-time members is right.
But the Minister, in subsection (2, b), is providing for the repeal of the provision in the 1947 Act which requires that not fewer than four men other than the chairman should render whole-time service. The only requirement left is:… only the chairman and such other members, if any, as the Minister thinks fit shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission.While it is true that the Minister can include full-time members, if he wishes, in addition to the chairman, he is not obliged under this proviso to appoint any full-time members other than the chairman of the Commission. We take the view that the chairman and four members should be full-time.
1708 This brings me to Clause 24 (1) which indicates the general duties of the Commission. It is a pretty considerable list. It is inherent in the existence of the Commission that they are—and I think the Minister will agree with this—the general planning, policy and wider financial authority for such transport services as will remain vested in the Commission itself. That is a pretty big job, which requires a good deal of work and attention. I do not think it should be wholly in the hands of salaried chief Officers and subordinate officials, but I think that some of it should be supervised by full-time members of the Commission.
Subsection (1) specifically provides "railway services for Great Britain." I appreciate that the Commission may provide them through the area organisations which it is proposed to set up. Nevertheless, the Commission has to make the scheme, and presumably it will have some duties of general co-ordination and supervision and may have some direct executive functions in connection with part of the railway undertakings. It says that the Commission shall… provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport …in London, and shall also… provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services and facilities for traffic on inland waterways …The Commission is also to deal with port facilities… to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient …that is to say, in… places in which they were providing port facilities on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two …These are considerable duties. Moreover, the Minister takes power under the Bill to abolish the whole of the Executives if he is so minded. It has been pointed out that under our Act of 1947 the Minister was only obliged to appoint one Executive and need not have appointed any more and had power to scrap all of them except one, but the amended provision in this Bill relating to the power of the Minister to scrap all the Executives rather indicates that the Government have in mind the reduction of the Executives.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
This is a very important matter and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. The Road Haulage Executive is, of course, being wound up as part of the process of disposal. The Railway Executive, if not abolished before, will be abolished when the scheme is submitted. That leaves three other Executives.
The London Transport Executive will obviously remain as a separate body, though it might be thought convenient by the Commission to give it another name and slightly to alter its status, but that I do not know, and I do not want to prejudge the issue. The future of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the Hotels Executive will fall to be decided in the scheme to be submitted by the Commission. Should the Commission wish it, this gives me or my successor freedom to give the two remaining Executives some different status within the structure of the Commission. I should not have to come back to Parliament for further power.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I could abolish everything but one under the right hon. Gentleman's own Act, but the Commission might wish, and it might be considered desirable, to abolish them all and retain in some other form than with Executives the services which the last two Executives I mentioned are now giving.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Morrison
I think the Minister has stated it fairly, but at the end of the day it still is the case that the Commission and the Minister between them have the ability to scrap the Executives and vest the duties of the Executives in the Commission. I follow the point about the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Executive, to which we are opposed, but there it is.
I should be unhappy if the Hotels Executive did not continue in existence. I will not argue who should run the railway buffet and restaurant cars, but the management of the hotels is worthy of a separate Executive, and I do not think it would be wise to give back to the railwaymen the running of the hotels. The hotels should be a separate concern associated with the Commission. Similarly, 1710 the docks and harbours are worthy of a separate Executive. Nevertheless, under the provisions of the Bill, it is theoretically possibly for all these bodies to be scrapped and their duties to be vested in the Commission itself.
Taking into account all these considerations, the work which the Commission will inevitably have to do seems to be rather increased in some ways, even though its properties will diminish, and it seems to be increased in some ways compared with the present order of things plus the possibility that some of the other Executives will be abolished and part of their duties transferred to the Commission.
It appears to me that a case has not been made for the abolition of full-time members of the Commission with the exception of the chairman. We must have a balance. If all the members are full-time functional ones, they become in a way a board of chief officers. That is practised in some private enterprise industries. It is, I believe, partly, not wholly, applied by I.C.I., and partly applied by Unilever's Nevertheless, I do not like that method. I like the element of criticism and detachment represented by part-time members. I do not want a board of chief officers. It is like having a municipality which has an executive board of chief officers with no councillors to supervise the chief officers, which would be wrong.
On the other hand, one does not want to go too far the other way. If there is nobody but the full-time chairman and the full-time servants of the board, it may be that the element of full-time service on the board itself will be insufficient to watch the working of the undertaking and to supervise the executive chief officers.
I am in favour of a balance. I believe the Bill goes too far in giving the Minister power completely to abolish the full-time element with the exception of the chairman. We should prefer a co-ordinated full-time element of a chairman and four other members with others who are part-time. As I have already pointed out, we favour in principle the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Bolton, West.
Some ideas have been promulgated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), whom we are sorry not 1711 to see in the Chamber at the moment. If area transport authorities or whatever they will be called—I had better be careful how I describe them; I nearly fell down the other night—are set up, it is conceivable that some of the part-time members of the Transport Commission could be used additionally as part-time chairmen of some of those authorities. Full-time members might be used for that purpose. All sorts of things could happen. If the Bill is to go forward in its present shape, which we do not like, there is a great deal to be said for a fair amount of elasticity, but not so much elasticity as to reduce the full-time element on the Commission to the chairman only.
I could say much more about this, for it is an interesting subject, but we have not time, for the Guillotine is to fall at 8.30 p.m. and we want to discuss an important Amendment relating to members of the Commission having experience of organised labour. Consequently, I content myself with what I have said, hoping that we shall leave time to discuss the Amendment about which hon. Friends of mine who are associated with the trade union movement are keen.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I thank my hon. friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) for his courtesy in cutting short his observations on his Amendment and enabling me to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) before making my comments. I must say straight away that this is the sort of matter on which the general experience of the Committee is of great value to any Government in making up its mind.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, at present there is a full-time chairman, to whom I have paid very genuine tributes for the work that he has done, and there is an obligation that there should be not fewer than four and not more than eight members, of whom no fewer than four must be full-time. Although we have criticised the 1947 Act and said that an impossible task was imposed on the Commission and, through it, its Executives. none the less I wish to repeat the gratitude which we all feel for the self-sacrificing work which the Commission has done and the efficient manner in which it has carried out its obligations.
1712 The hon. Member for Bolton, West wanted to make the number not 10 but 14, while the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South wanted to insist that a fixed number—I think it was not less than four—of the expanded Commission of 10 must be full-time members. He referred to the danger of people who are all full-time—and I like his phrase very much—becoming a little monastic. May I say in passing that in my visits to the railways I have found many grades of people engaged on the railways who have seen that danger in the last few years. They have said—and one of them used the same word—that with the disappearance of outside directors, who brought a knowledge of what was happening in the world, among the passengers, among the people who wanted to send freight, they themselves were living a life which was a little too monastic, all talking railway business all the time and hearing insufficient of what was happening outside.
§ Mr. Sparks
Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman favours a substantial increase in the part-time members of the Commission? I am sure he will bear in mind that before nationalisation the four main line railways had 74 directors, most of them part-time. Is he suggesting that that principle should be adopted here?
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I was not suggesting any principle, other than welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman said—that there is a danger that those who are engaged full-time in a particular job, if they have few contacts with the outside world, tend to become a little too monastic. I think there is very little danger of that happening to a Member of Parliament. We keep in contact with the outside world through an average of some 50,000 people, most of whom, in my experience, seem to write to their Member of Parliament at least once every month.
As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we have tried to strike a happy balance here. It seemed to us that there was a case for increasing the membership of the Commission— the maximum possible membership—from eight to 10. It may be that all the executives will go. As I have been at pains to say, I believe the London Executive would remain as a separate unit even if it were not strictly an executive. I must await the statement 1713 of the scheme before I can give any information on that matter.
Nevertheless, the number of people directly concerned with the centralised running of the various activities will inevitably be reduced as a result of the disappearance of the executives, although, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the many other bodies which were provided for in Clause 14 will assume many of the functions now being conducted, for example, by the Railway Executive. It seemed to us that there was a case for increasing the number of the Commission from eight to 10, but I am anxious to retain a freedom to decide, and for my successor to decide—and I believe he will welcome this decision— what is the proper proportion between full-time and part-time members.
I know it would be easy outside this Committee for some hon. Members, if so minded, to say that the Government were putting the running of British Railways in the hands of people only one of whom was giving full-time attention to the job, supported by people all of whom might be part-time. But that would be a grave perversion of the truth. There will be various other authorities, composed almost entirely of railway officers, provided for in Clause 14—a great many people directly concerned in what will be the most important part of the Commission's activities, which is the organisation and running of British Railways.
Other duties now imposed on the Commission will go. They will no longer have the duty to provide an integrated system of public transport. I should be out of order if I went back to the reasons why we decided that was no longer a practical proposition. They will no longer have the obligation to run a long-distance road haulage monopoly. They will no longer have the duty to run road passenger area schemes or prepare them. They will no longer have the duty of preparing a scheme for trade harbours.
These are very considerable changes, and although we think there is a case for the Minister having a wider field to choose from in increasing the number from eight to 10, we do not think we should pre-judge the matter of the people who are to be part-time or full-time. Probably this is the strongest consideration in all our minds. The percentage of part-time and full-time members must largely 1714 depend on the form which the organisation of the railways takes and the form of the re-organised railway scheme.
I can imagine different ways in which the scheme can be made, some of which may demand full-time concentration by members of the British Transport Commission, in which case naturally there would have to be at least one, if not more, full-time member with particular responsibility in that field. It may be that the declared intention of the Government to encourage decentralisation of the railways will produce a scheme in which that would not be necessary, in which case we should not need the same proportion of full-time members.
To sum up, we certainly do not intend that there should be only a full-time chairman, but we think it would be unwise to introduce a rigid proportion as between full-time and part-time members until we see the shape of the railway re-organisation scheme to come. Nor do we feel that there has yet been a case made out—and there will be other occasions when we can discuss this, both in another place and on the Report stage—for increasing the number of the Commission, but, as I have said, this is the sort of issue on which the wisdom of the Committee can well change Government policy, although it is my present intention to ask the Committee to reject both Amendments.
§ Major Legge-Bourke
Could my right hon. Friend give this assurance? He will realise that Section 5 of the Act under which these executives were set up is affected by the Bill. Has he in mind the idea of making some of the permanent members of the Commission in future people who have working knowledge of the various subjects still covered by the executives which will continue? I have particularly in mind the docks and inland waterways. Can my right hon. Friend give that assurance?
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
My hon. and gallant Friend will have seen an Amendment on the Order Paper demanding, first, financial knowledge, secondly, operational knowledge, and thirdly, experience; and I shall deal with those various points, all of which I hope will be included in the Commission, as we come to them. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind that Executive 1715 very closely associated with his own part of the world and one part of its activities, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. The future of that Executive and the way in which that vital work must be conducted must depend and await the scheme to be put forward by the Commission. But I have already said this: I give an assurance to those people who are disturbed at the possibility that there is no intention that these activities will be handed over to the de-centralised railways. They will be conducted in the form to be submitted to me by the Commission, under the Commission, although not in conjunction with the de-centralised railways.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Morrison
We do not propose to divide the Committee on this occasion, partly because we have not sufficient time to divide and partly because the Minister has given an answer which shows, I gather, that his mind is a little bit open. On the other hand, I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment, so we shall consent to its being negatived without a Division. The same applies to the next two Amendments. We should like to divide on them but we cannot, as the Guillotine will fall at 8.30. We shall reserve our Division until the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Amendment proposed: In page 32, line 18, leave out "repealed and accordingly only," and insert "amended so that."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
Amendment proposed: In page 32, line 19, after "chairman," insert "four other members."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
I beg to move, in page 32, line 22, to leave out paragraph (c).
I understand from what you said earlier, Sir Charles, that you were willing that the remaining Amendments to this Clause should be taken together with the one I am moving.
§ Mr. Davies
Thank you, Sir Charles. The Amendment I am moving is one of a series aimed to ensure that the British 1716 Transport Commission remains an adequately representative body to carry out the duties which remain to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), speaking on the previous Amendments, dealt with the duties which remain, but I would add that, although it is true that certain duties of the Commission are to be taken away from them, particularly as regards road haulage, the preparation of passenger schemes and the like, those which do remain will be equally burdensome, and in some ways more onerous, because of the fact that road haulage has been taken away. The difficulties that will confront the Commission will be very great indeed.
The Commission will be faced with a very difficult task in making ends meet and in operating successfully. It is therefore almost more essential than ever that the composition of the Commission shall be correct. I would remind the Minister that there will still be assets worth more than £1,300 million which the Commission will have to administer, and that sum is not on the small side. The Commission will be answerable to the Minister. It will be accountable, and therefore the persons who serve on it must be able to accept the responsibility which that entails.
It was always the intention of the former Minister of Transport in the Labour Government that the Transport Commission should be a policy-making and planning body, and such it has largely been. It was never intended that it should be a managerial body. One is a little worried, therefore, when the Minister refers to the possibility of the Commission managing the Tailways, or implying that there is that possibility.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I would not want to give that impression at all, or have it go out to the country. There is no such idea. I said that when the scheme was submitted by the Commission it might envisage the need for a member of the Commission to be directly concerned, on the lines of the letter from the Chairman which I read to the Committee.
§ Mr. Davies
On another occasion we may have an opportunity of discussing that point in mare detail. I consider that it is necessary to have some form of management intervening between the planning body, which is the Commission, 1717 and the actual transport authorities in the regions, whatever they shall be. The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving is to remove paragraph (c), which defines persons who, the Bill suggests, should be drawn upon to serve upon the Commission. By omitting the paragraph, the position would revert to that which was provided for in the 1947 Act. There it was stated that the Commission should be appointed by the Ministerfrom among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers.The important thing is that, as we understand the Bill, the field from which the Commission is to be drawn is to be narrowed somewhat, and we disapprove of that. In the first place, the membership is to includepersons who between them have had experience in the management of railways and road transport.As has been pointed out, the inland waterways are omitted as are docks, harbours and canals. There are Amendments to bring them in. Further, the field is limited by the reference topersons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as is mentioned in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry.That, too, is somewhat limited, more limited than it was in the 1947 Act, and we propose to broaden it. If paragraph (c) is omitted, it will bring back into the Bill the requirement that persons on the Commission shall be drawn from a wider field.
We think it is necessary also that there should be some continuity of membership and that it would be unfortunate if the newly-appointed Commission did not consist partly of those who have already had experience of the existing Commission. It is very probable, I quite appreciate, that that would be the case, but it might be as well to include that point in the Bill.
We therefore propose an Amendment to insert the words:persons who have had experience of the duties and business of the Commission.We want to ensure continuity, despite the disposal of certain of the assets of the Commission, because a very large amount of similar duties remain.
1718 Perhaps the most important of the Amendments which we want to bring to the attention of the Minister is that which changes "a person" to "persons," in respect of those who have had experience in the organisation of workers. We think it is most unfortunate that the Minister should have decided to limit the representation of those who have had experience in the organisation of workers to one individual. In none of the nationalisation Bills was there any such limitation. The requirement was that there should be included representatives of those with such experience, and it was never made clear whether the number should be one, two or more. This point was left to the discretion of the Minister.
In all the nationalised boards which have been set up there has been created a team of responsible individuals drawn from fields of activity relevant to the particular board, and in each one of them there have been one or more representatives of the works. It has never been our contention that the boards should be representative bodies, inasmuch as the people represented certain sections of the community and were responsible to them, but we did consider that there should be included on the boards someone who has had experience of the trade union movement, and such has been the case.
After the Bill goes through, if it goes through in its present form, the Road Haulage Executive and the Railway Executive will disappear, on both of which there are representatives of the trade union movement. The Commission will clearly have fewer workers' representatives serving on it after the Bill goes through, as well as on its Executives, than is the case at the present time. It seems to us that if the experience which the trade union movement is able to bring to the operation of this great transport industry is not to be drawn upon to the same extent in future, then the Commission will suffer, and the relationship with the workers might not be as happy as it has been up to the present.
I therefore suggest that the least the Minister can do is to accept the Amendment which requires that instead of "a person" there shall be "persons" who have experience in the organisation of workers, and that if he is unable to accept the Amendment in this particular form 1719 he should bring sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2, c) together, so that they should read somewhat to this effect:persons who between them have had experience in the management and organisation of workers in railways and road transport.In that way he would not limit himself to having only one representative of the workers or of the trade union movement on the Commission. The experience up to the present of having a representative board for the nationalised industries has been successful. I am sure the Minister will agree that those who have been drawn from the trade union movement, much to its loss, have contributed their full share to the success of these nationalised undertakings.
§ Mr. Davies
I ask the Minister not to go back on this, but to show his appreciation of the service they have given by providing in this Bill that their representation shall not be limited in any way.
§ Brigadier Ralph Rayner (Totnes)
I appreciate the desire of my right hon. Friend to keep the Commission as small as possible, but inland water transport has received little mention so far. Therefore, Sir Charles, may I refer to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself in line 27 of this Clause, at end, insert:and inland water."?The interest which some of us took in inland waterways when we numbered Sir Alan Herbert amongst our colleagues has persisted, and therefore we have put down that Amendment which aims at getting the Minister to include in this Commission someone with a specialist knowledge of our canals.
We all know that the French, Dutch and most other Europeans have not only preserved but improved their canals over the last 50 years, whereas in this country we have let them go. Now that we have ceased to be the rich island we used to be, we feel that we should turn to this cheapest form of heavy transport, so that in itself is a good reason for having on the Commission someone with special knowledge of canals.
It is worth while to try to divert from our ever more congested roads some of 1720 the heavy traffic. It is worth while to try to save some square miles of that valuable food-producing land which is earmarked for future road schemes. It is worth while to try to save some of the millions of tons of steel which go to railway maintenance, and it is worth while to try to conserve our water transport as only a really efficient canal system can conserve it.
On this occasion I cannot argue the possibility of doing any of those things or suggest where the money could be found, but they all constitute good reasons why the Minister might consider having an expert on the Commission. We are not asking much, because this subsection is merely permissive. Although the Minister may tell us tonight that he cannot meet us on this Amendment, I hope he will give more thought to it between now and the Report stage.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Mellish
We all agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) has said about our canals and the desirabilty of having on the Commission an expert point of view. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me when I say that those canals were in the control of private enterprise for a long time and were badly neglected. A new set-up was established under the British Transport Commission which had a great job to do in preparing schemes, so it is important that we should have one of those representatives on the Commission.
I am also concerned that we should have on it a further representative of the trade unions. It may mean that the Minister will have to increase the size of the Commission, but I do not see why he should not do that. Even after this Bill becomes an Act, the Commission will be responsible for £1,300,000 of property. Does the noble Lord wish to query that figure? I see he has only just come in. He would not know that the Minister has refused to accept an Amendment to increase the Commission to 14.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
If the hon. Member will look at lines 14 and 15 on page 32, he will find that the membership of the Commission is being increased under the Bill.
§ Mr. Mellish
With great respect, there are Amendments which would extend the 1721 Commission. The Minister was not prepared to do that, and we are pressing him to do so. This Clause lays down the actual number. It says:a person who has had experience in the organisation of workers.Just one person. We are asking for that to be extended. When the R.H.E. and the Railway Executive go, we shall lose the services of men who have done a remarkable job, such as Mr. Harold Clay of the Road Haulage Executive and Mr. Allen of the Railway Executive. They have the trust and support of the workers in the industry, they have lived their lives amongst them, and they are practical men. The Commission need men of this calibre, but if the Minister allows this Clause to go through as it is, if he wants to put them on it he cannot do so.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will show his sincerity on this occasion. The other day we had a discussion about the Disposal Board. Wonderful tributes were paid to the great work of the trade union movement and it was said how right it was that the trade unions should be represented on that board. We pointed out that it would be improper for them to be concerned with smashing up an industry which they had done so much to build. Now we can find out whether the Minister is genuine in what he said. If he is, all he has to do is to add an "s" at the end of the word "person."
§ Major Legge-Bourke
I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) and I ask the Minister to bear in mind that, as far as inland waterways are concerned, they were, still could be, and in some cases are vital links in our communications and transport system, and that the powers which the Commission have over inland waterways are considerable.
Some of my hon. Friends and myself have put down a new Clause entitled "Repeals relating to inland waterways" which I understand will not be selected. That Clause is designed to restrict those powers considerably and if it is not possible to do that, the case for increasing the influence which those who know something about inland waterways can have on the Commission is even greater than before. I hope the Minister will go as far as he can to meet this plea.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
Since this debate has to come to an end at 8.30, perhaps I had better make my observations now. It has been interesting, even though it has produced some curious observations; curious in the context of what happened in 1947 and of the failure of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to make any protest at the time. In a moment I will come on to the highly important question of trade union representation.
As hon. Gentlemen who look at the Bill will realise, the Third Schedule only repeals certain parts of the Act. In the case of Part I of the 1947 Act, subsection (2) of the Clause expressly limits the extent of the repeal to the obligation that four members other than the chairman must render whole-time service. This, therefore, leaves the field from which the Minister can choose suitable people for the Commission as it was in the 1947 Act, strengthened by the wider field that is now available as well.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite—for example, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—who spoke about representatives of or people qualified to speak for inland waterways and docks and harbours being omitted from the Commission, realise what happens now. The Commission as constituted contains probably no one who could be regarded as an expert in that field. Sir William Wood, former chairman of the L.M.S. Railway, of course had a good deal to do with inland waterways, but there is no suggestion that the Commission contains any leading expert on inland waterways.
I recognise the importance of inland waterways and should like to make it plain to both of my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) and the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that this is a genuine interest. I am sorry if this highly important part of our transport system, with its roots so deep in our history, should have received very little attention in this debate, but that does not augur any lack of interest in their future and I shall certainly look at the wording in the light of the observations that my hon. and gallant Friends have made.
We are also anxious that there should be continuity. I agree with the view of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that there certainly ought to be on the Commission somebody who is on the existing 1723 Commission. There is, however, a danger in making anything obligatory, and I hope that my assurance that I cannot conceive such a break with continuity as no invitation being extended to an existing member of the Commission to serve in the future, will remove the doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
Now, I come to the question of trade union representation, to which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) directed some observations. I am very anxious—the Bill shows it—that there should, and must, be a trade unionist on the Commission. But after all, hon. Members opposite in their own legislation, in Section 1 (2), did not provide that there must be a trade unionist. I am no lawyer, but I am advised that the wordingpersons who have had wide experience … in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers.…would have left it perfectly free for a Minister, if so minded, not to have included a trade unionist. I have searched with great care, and with the aid of some of my colleagues who are less busy than I, the whole of the Committee stage when the Bill of 1947 was before Parliament. No Labour Member then complained that this was not made obligatory on the Minister.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
That is a specious argument. When the Bill was going through the House, we knew that the Labour Government would remain in office long enough for us to appoint the Commission. Every member of the trade union movement knew perfectly well that there would be representatives of the workers on it. We do not share the same view regarding the present Government.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
No. I must say the positive part of what I have to say before 8.30. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very anxious, not only to have the right Commission now, but that the next Conservative Government and the one after that can re-appoint from the then Commission those most suitable to carry on this good work.
I was only at pains to point that there was no obligation put upon the Minister in the late Administration that a trade 1724 unionist should be included. I have discussed this with a number of hon. Members and also with representatives of the trade unions. We are very anxious to meet any reasonable point that may be advanced. The Commission could be as small as four and, under the proposal, cannot be more than 10. I have to try to balance properly the interests of providers and users of transport. I do not want to tie my hands so as to have an absolute obligation that if the Commission is smaller than anticipated—and it might be; we must await the scheme of railway de-centralisation—there must be more than one trade union representative.
I rather like the suggestion of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that we might amalgamate paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2, c) which would then read:persons who between them have had experience in the management and the organisation of workers in railways and road transport.This would psychologically have the effect of not making representatives of workers the only people who are put in the singular. There is certainly no intention that the Minister should be prevented from appointing more than one. I am prepared to give very favourable consideration to that proposal, and I hope before the Report stage to be able to formulate a Clause which will commend itself both to this side of the Committee and to the viewpoint that the hon. Gentleman has advanced.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
I should like the Minister to understand fully that this is the less preferable of the two. We would far rather "person" became plural, and we would only reluctantly accept the Minister's suggestion.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I understand that, but it might be one of those compromises which turns out to be the wisest solution of all three.
§ Mr. Mitchison
Will the Minister consider one point? As the Clause at present reads, it seems to have the effect that the Minister does not want. I think it ties him to appointing only one person with trade union experience. It is not a matter that we can argue now, but it was a remarkable piece of drafting to put "person" in that one case and not in the others. The Minister should consider whether it does not have a limiting effect on whether he can appoint 1725 as many as he likes or as few as he likes if he inserts "person." I did not make the Guillotine.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
Nor did I—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] We proceeded to do what the Opposition did in the Transport Bill in 1947. I am not, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), a lawyer but if we put in "persons" I should think that would put an absolute obligation on the Minister to appoint more than one, but this is where the hon. and learned Member would undoubtedly earn a higher fee than I would, and I am not proposing to argue about that.
I have, I hope, given an indication of our desire not to be compelled to do it, but not to be prevented from doing it, and I will sympathetically consider the wording which has been proposed. We have heard so much in various points made on Amendments to this and to other Clauses of the suggestion that the Government are not interested in those who actually work in an industry having a chance to play a part in the management of that industry. There is nothing in the wording here which would prevent that.
I must say to hon. Members who frequently hurl these charges at the Conservative Party that I urge them to look up the resolutions of the 1951 Annual Conference of the Labour Party. This is strictly relevant to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) in page 32, line 27, which relates to people experienced in operation. I would commend to hon. Members opposite the resolutions of the conference of the Labour Party. If they turn to pages 48 and 49, they will find the agenda studded with protests from members of their own party all over the country at the failure to employ men experienced in the working of the nationalised industry in the running of the industry.
§ We say that the good name of our own party and of Her Majesty's Government is at stake. It should be clearly known that this Government attaches as much importance and probably more to the direct participation of working men in the management of the industry as did their predecessors.
§ Mr. Callaghan
The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the last few moments before the Guillotine falls—so that we cannot reply—to put over a cheap party point. He knows very well that the resolutions put on the order paper of the conference were not accepted by the conference. He ought to have found a better use of the closing moments of a debate of this kind than to put forward a cheap party point of that sort. It has been typical of his action when he thinks he can score a point. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the workers in the road haulage industry and on the railways have no particular confidence in him when they see—
It being half-past Eight o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 25, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
On a point of order. We had stated that we wished to negative all these Amendments, as we did the previous one.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Eight o'Clock.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 245 Noes, 235.1729
|Division No. 58.]||AYES||[8.32 p.m|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Bennett, William (Woodside)||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Brooman-White, R. C.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Birch, Nigel||Browne, Jack (Govan)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Bishop, F. P.||Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.|
|Barber, Anthony||Black, C. W||Bullard, D. G.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bossom, A. C.||Bullock, Capt. M.|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Boyle, Sir Edward||Burden, F. F. A.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Braine, B. R.||Campbell, Sir David|
|Carr, Robert||Hurd, A. R.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Carson, Hon. E.||Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Channon, H.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Cole, Norman||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Colegate, W. A.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Redmayne, M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Kaberry, D.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kerr, H. W.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lambton, Viscount||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Crouch, R. F.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Russell, R. S.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Deedes, W. F.||Linstad, H. N.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Scott, R. Donald|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Longden, Gilbert||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Low, A. R. W.||Shepherd, William|
|Donner, P. W.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Mackibbin, A. J.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Draws, C.||Mckie, J. H. (Galloway)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Maclean, Fitzroy||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Speir, R. M.|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Erroll, F. J.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Fell, A.||Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Finlay, Graeme||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Markham, Major S. F.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Storey, S.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Marples, A. E.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)||Summers, G. S.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Maude, Angus||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Godber, J. B.||Maudling, R.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Gower, H. R.||Mellor, Sir John||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Molson, A. H. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Tilney, John|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)||Morrison, John (Sallsbury)||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Turton, R. H.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nicholls, Harmar||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Heald, Sir Lionel||Nugent, G. R. H.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Heath, Edward||Nutting, Anthony||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Oakshott, H. D.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Odey, G. W.||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Osborne, C.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Partridge, E.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Horobin, I. M.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||York, C.|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Mr. Butcher and Mr. Wills.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Blenkinsop, A.|
|Adams, Richard||Bartley, P.||Blyton, W. R.|
|Albu, A. H.||Bence, C. R.||Boardman, H.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Benn, Wedgwood||Bowden, H. W.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Benson, G.||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Beswick, F.||Brook, Dryden (Halifax)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Bing, G. H. C.||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.|
|Baoon, Miss Alice||Blackburn, F.||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Burke, W. A.||Janner, B.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Rankin, John|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Jeger, George (Goole)||Reeves, J.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Carmichael, J.||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Champion, A. J.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Rhodes, H.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Collick, W.||Keenan, W.||Ross, William|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Kenyon, C.||Royle, C.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Kinley, J.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Short, E. W.|
|Darling George (Hillsborough)||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Lewis, Arthur||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lindgren, G. S.||Slater, J.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Logan, D. G.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||MacColl, J. E.||Snow, J. W.|
|Deer G.||McInnes, J.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dodds, N. N.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McLeavy, F.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.||Steele, T.|
|Evans, Stanley(Wednesbry)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Ewart, R.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Field, W. J.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Swingler, S. T.|
|Fienburgh, W.||Manuel, A. C.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Finch, H. J.||Mayhew, C. P.||Tayler, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Folliok, M.||Mellish, R. J.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Foot, M. M.||Messer, F.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Forman, J. C.||Mikardo, Ian||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mitchison, G. R.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Monslow, W.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Moody, A. s.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Glanville, James||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Morley, R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Thornton, E.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R||Mort, D. L.||Tomney, F.|
|Grey, C. F.||Moyle, A.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mulley, F. W.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Murray, J. D.||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Nally, W.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Grimond, J.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Oldfield, W. H.||West, D. G.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Oliver, G. H.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hannan, W.||Orbach, M.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hargreaves, A.||Oswald, T.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Padley, W. E.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Hastings, S.||Paget, R. T.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Wigg, George|
|Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Pannell, Charles||Willey, F. T.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Pargiter, G. A.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Parker, J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Holman, P.||Parton, J.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Holt, A. F.||Pearson, A.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Peart, T. F.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Yates, V. F.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Popplewell, E.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Porter, G.|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifte)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Mr. Holmes and Mr. Arthur Allen.|
|Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.