HC Deb 03 July 1952 vol 503 cc679-95

7.0 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

I beg to move, in page 60, line 38, to leave out Clause 117.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the debate on Clause 117 of the Rochester Corporation Bill were taken simultaneously with the corresponding item of the Leamington Corporation Bill [Lords] in respect of Clause 140 of that Bill, which deals with the same subject.

Mr. Speaker

I have considered these two Bills and the point raised here is exactly the same in both. If it is agreeable to the House, I propose that there should be a general debate covering the same point with regard to both Bills. I do not propose to select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) to leave out Clause 145 of the second Bill.

Mr. Erroll

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should add that if it is intended to press this matter to a Division, as I have been paired for the whole of today I shall not be taking part in that Division.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)

If the Amendment on the second Bill has not been selected, how can there be a Division only on the Amendment to the first Bill if we are to debate the general principle in both Bills together?

Mr. Speaker

There are two Amendments to the Leamington Corporation Bill and the first deals with the same point as the Amendment to the Rochester Bill. The second Amendment to the Learning-ton Bill raises quite another point and that is the one which I have not selected.

Mr. Erroll

There are two objects in this Clause, which for brief reference can be called the "Hairdressers' Clause." It enables byelaws to be made to keep hairdressing establishments clean and it also gives powers to local authorities concerned to compel the registration of all persons practising as hairdressers in order to facilitate inspection for the purpose of seeing that the byelaws are being observed.

My contention and that of my hon. Friends is that even if the purpose of the Clause is desirable, this is not the way to carry it out. I propose to develop the different facets of this argument in my remarks. It is quite clear, of course, that we all want clean barbers' shops. No one who supports my Amendment is in favour of dirty barbers' shops. The question is what is the best way of securing clean shops and what is the standard of cleanliness with which we are really concerned.

There are two standards or sorts of cleanliness in this matter. There is the cleanliness in the housewifely sense, namely, no dust, no hair clippings lying around and the ordinary sort of standard of cleanliness one would expect to find in one's bathroom at home. Then there is the other standard of cleanliness—that of the surgical cleanliness of an operating theatre. However desirable it may be to have that higher standard of surgical cleanliness, it is obviously quite impracticable for the many hairdressing establishments of this country, including those of Rochester itself.

As, therefore, we are concerned with domestic cleanliness, I submit that this is essentially a matter which can be safely left in the hands of the public. If a barber's shop is dirty, it is quite easy for the customers to see that and to make their complaint to the proprietor, and, if nothing is done about it, to go to another shop. We are not dealing here with war-time scarcity and the shortage of barbers. Indeed, I am informed that there is a good deal of competition in the trade and that that is the reason why prices are relatively low.

The remedy lies in the hands of the public who can change shops if they find a dirty one. That is the more British way of doing it than to report the matter to the town hall, from where an inspector will be sent round, or indeed not to do anything about it because it is somebody's else's job, namely, the town hall official's, to go round and inspect—which would be the case if this Clause were passed.

Surgical cleanliness would involve sterilisation of all instruments and equipment, as well as scrupulous standards of cleanliness in the premises and adjacent buildings. I mention particularly surgical cleanliness because of the rather horrifying bogy in the statement sent to certain hon. Members by the promoters of the Bill. In the bottom paragraph of the first page of that statement they refer to skin diseases which they claim are likely to result from lack of hygienic arrangements in hairdressing establishments.

They include a number of fearsome looking diseases with horrible names, and it is suggested that these diseases may be visited upon an unwary customer who patronises a barber's shop which has not benefited from the standards proposed. These diseases, while they are rare enough, do exist in this country and their incidence could be curtailed only by complete sterilisation of all barbers' equipment, if indeed they are transmitted to any significant degree by barbers' equipment in this country.

Indeed if an inspector went round barbers' shops maintaining merely a domestic standard of cleanliness, it would provide the public with a false sense of security—if any additional sense of security is necessary—because the public would think that if the establishments were domestically clean they therefore would be surgically sterilised as well and there would be no risk of contracting these contagious diseases. But in actual fact, of course, the risk is so slight as to be entirely negligible.

In the short time in which I have had available a copy of the statement by the promoters—and that was only a few minutes before this debate was due to begin—I have consulted the British Encyclopaedia of Medical Practice which gives a complete account of the four principal diseases mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the promoters' statement.

It is quite clear, for example, that ringworm can be contracted from other human beings, but the principal source of contact in this country is dirty animals, and particularly dogs and cats. The risk from barbers' dirty equipment is extremely small. In the case of pityriasis, the British Encyclopaedia of Medical Practice says that it is not only a very rare disease but that its causes are unknown. The House should realise that this sinister disease bogy is somewhat of an exaggeration, to rate it no higher.

As for boils, one of the other items mentioned in the promoters' statement, according to the same medical authority that disease is communicated by a staphylococcus which comes to people by various means, one particular example being from the scrubbing of the skin with a clean scrubbing brush, thereby opening up the pores. I mention this because it shows that the ordinary general standard of cleanliness is no protection against staphylococci and against boils where they are the result of staphylococcal infection.

If this inspection is to produce properly sterile establishments with absolutely no risk whatsoever of the possibility of dangerous disease, the inspection must be carried out in a proper medical manner. There would have to be sections cut from brushes, tools and other equipment so that specimens could be taken away to a proper laboratory for treatment and analysis and subsequent microscopic inspection. If that is what Rochester Corporation really want, they should have these powers; but I cannot conceive that this is what they really want to happen, and anything short of that will not prevent the risks which they claim exist at present.

I suggest that those risks are completely negligible or non-existent. This House does not need to be taken in by this bogy of disease. It is noticeable that in page 1 of the statement of Rochester Corporation it is admitted that there have been no cases of these diseases in Rochester since the war. They admit that during the war there was one case of barbers' itch. That is understandable, because at that time both towels and soap were rationed and conditions may have been difficult; but now that neither of these commodities is rationed and when there is plenty of competition amongst barbers, I submit that there is no need for this particular protection.

There is yet further evidence to support my view. A number of towns already have these powers, but it is significant that, where they have an inspection system in force, there is no evidence of a reduced incidence of skin disease. Skin disease will occur, but it is obviously not because of the barbers' shops, whether they are clean or domestically dirty. If, indeed, there were any evidence that inspection and policing of barbers' shops did reduce the incidence of skin disease, I should be the first to welcome inspection Clauses of this sort; but in the absence of any such evidence, I feel that we should regard with extreme caution the claims made in the statement of Rochester Corporation.

I suggest that the real objects of the Clause are very different. First, there is the motive—probably unconscious—of providing an extra function in the town hall. Rochester and Leamington Corporations may feel that, as other towns inspect their barbers' shops they also should have the powers to do so. I know that it is unlikely that it will be a whole-time job, but it represents an added duty and responsibility for some official and therefore a claim for increased status and possibly increased salary at some time in the future, I do not think we should stand idly by and see this sort of "pyramiding" going on, small though it may be when compared with bigger examples on a national scale.

There is another object of the Clause which I mention with diffidence, because I do not wish to arouse controversy in the matter; but it does seem that this Clause is particularly appropriate if anyone wants to frighten away newcomers into the hairdressing business. It is well known that the Hairdressers' Federation are in favour of a closed shop in their industry and they do not want outsiders to come in, and compulsory registration is quite a good way of frightening off newcomers, even though I should be the first to admit that anyone may register and that the town hall concerned cannot refuse any application for registration. Nevertheless, the fact that existing hairdressers are registered and logged up in the town hall is likely to act as a deterrent to new entrants to this trade.

I would remind the House that when Private Members' time was first restored to us, one hon. Member introduced a Hairdressers' Bill designed to make hairdressing a closed shop throughout the country but, though I feel his motives were sincere, the Bill was thrown out lock, stock and barrel when there was a Labour majority in the House. The fact that the Hairdressers' Federation gave evidence in favour of this Clause before the Committee which examined this Bill is scarcely relevant, because one would hardly expect them to do otherwise, as they are the main force behind this type of Clause.

7.15 p.m.

I want to turn now to the evils of registration itself, particularly as applied to hairdressers. I believe—as many of my hon. Friends do—that registration should be avoided wherever possible. I know that we have to register motor cars and that registration is necessary in many other walks of life, but as far as possible ordinary trade should be free from registration. If a man wants to be a hairdresser, let him be a hairdresser without his having to register the fact.

The next evil of registration, particularly as applied to hairdressing, is that registration does not catch those who fail to register and who are probably the very ones the promoters want to inspect. So that even if we give Rochester and Leamington Corporations this Clause, they will not be catching the dirty hairdressers whom they are so anxious to catch. In fact, when I mentioned this point to the agents of one such Bill, I was told that this could be a function of the police and that they could go round looking for any shops or private houses where a bit of hairdressing was being done on the quiet and report the fact to the town hall. I suggest that, at a time like this, there are very many more valuable jobs for the police to do than trying to catch someone who is doing a bit of hairdressing without being registered for that purpose.

Registration particularly affects the part-time hairdresser, and it is the part-time hairdresser to whom the Hairdressers' Federation particularly object. She is often a former assistant in a hairdresser's shop who marries and, in order to earn some pin money, takes on a few clients and does permanent waving and setting in her own home. This activity represents a very serious threat to the hairdressing shops, I admit, but I think it is most unfair to use the technique of registration to discourage those people who provide a useful and much cheaper service and who ought, therefore, to be encouraged.

I should like to stress the fact that these part-timers who do a little bit of hairdressing in their own homes are in all probability doing it in clean homes, because they are in their own homes, and these establishments are the very ones which least require inspection, as they must maintain a good standard if they are to continue to hold their very limited clientele.

I next want to turn to the very justifiable and understandable fear of registration. It may be irrational to fear registration, because no one can stop a person registering if he or she wishes; but there is a very real fear, particularly on the part of the home hairdresser, who does not want to have inspectors tramping round her home having a look at the basins and linen cupboards and all the rest of it. The home hairdresser probably does not want to be pestered by salesmen selling hairdressing equipment and who have listed the names on the register at the town hall and are now engaged in a vigorous campaign to sell more hairdressing equipment.

There may well be other reasons why the home hairdresser does not wish to make public her desire to earn a little pin money by some semi-amateur training. There are those who may be rather shy and who may not want too much to be known about it until they have succeeded fairly well. That applies particularly to the person who learns to do simple hair work by means of a correspondence course or by going to night classes, where she can learn the essentials of the art and can commence by doing only simple work until she feels ready to launch out on a bigger scale. Before she can do so in Rochester, however—if this Clause is agreed to—she must register upon pain of prosecution if she fails, although it remains to be seen whether the fact that she has not registered can ever be discovered.

There is a further disadvantage in registration. The fact that the trade or profession is registered gives the impression that only those who are in the trade already may practise, and although new registrations must be accepted, the fact is that the impression will get around that hairdressing is a closed shop and that no newcomers are welcome.

A particular disadvantage in registration is that it is being done only town by town. One may live in Maidstone, where there is no registration and, on moving to Rochester, find that hairdressers must be registered. That is all very well at the time the powers are granted when, with the publicity given, everybody already practising is made aware of the need to register; but I want to ask the promoters of the Bill what they will do in three years' time, when the byelaws have long since become rusty. How are newcomers to the town to know that in Rochester there is registration of hairdressers, especially if there is no such registration in the town from which they come?

How are they to keep on publicising the fact over and over again, except at considerable public expense—and to what purpose, in any case? If we are to have the registration of hairdressers because of the negligible risks which are run, we might as well proceed to the registration of garages in case they do faulty work which might lead to an accident, or to the registration of electrical contractors on the ground that faulty wiring might lead to a casualty in the home. We must not allow this process of registration to go too far.

There is another point which the House might like to take into account. This might lead to an increase in charges for hairdressing in Rochester and Leamington because the byelaws might give an opportunity for them to charge an extra 6d. or 1s. per hair-cut or half a crown for a "perm." I want to plead for a cheap hair-cut still, even if it is not absolutely surgically clean; let us have something which is cheap and adequate for those who cannot afford to pay more.

Finally, I would say to those who are inclined to favour registration, that if it is the good thing which the promoters have tried to make it appear, it should be made universally applicable by a public Bill. But can one really imagine a Government, whether it be Conservative or Labour, introducing a public Bill for this purpose? It is hardly likely, and yet it is happening piecemeal; as each batch of Private Bills comes up each session, a number of them contain this Clause, and so we are getting a patchwork of areas all over the country where registration is compulsory, surrounded by larger areas, fortunately still larger, where no such ridiculous nonsense is necessary. I admit freely that a number of towns have these powers already and that the Clause is one of the model Clauses, but I submit that no worth in these powers has yet been demonstrated and that it is, therefore, high time we stopped granting them.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

I beg to second the Amendment.

My primary objection to the Clause is against monopoly. It is quite true that on superficial reading the monopoly aspect does not appear, but I am always suspicious when I find a body of employers or trade unionists getting together to seek collectively to do in the industry something which makes it into a quasi-monopoly. It is not only the hairdressing trade; the window cleaners have tried it, on the pretext that the casual window cleaner might burgle a flat, although there is no evidence of such casual window cleaners having burgled flats. Equally, there is no particular evidence of these terrible things in the constituency represented by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley).

There is no case for the Clause at all. Its existence is only an accident. What people do not realise is the method by which these Private Bills are built up. I remember one in Croydon. They wanted extra powers for the water works, and out of dusty pigeon holes in Croydon town hall they collected a whole lot of completely nonsensical Clauses, collected a lot more from the Parliamentary Agents, and a Bill which need not have contained more than 20 Clauses became a Bill of about 120 Clauses.

I inquired into the history of some of these Clauses, which, with my assistance, disappeared from the Bill—because it is no part of the duty of a Member of Parliament to regard himself as the slave of his Corporation; certainly I am not, and I got more votes than all my councillors put together. Whenever there is a municipal Bill, the local Member gets up to defend it, without the faintest knowledge of whether the populace want it. Indeed, I do not believe 10 people in the whole of Rochester know that this Clause is in the Bill, and I doubt whether half the members of the council know it, either. Some of the Croydon councillors did not know the Clauses were in their Bill which I caused to be knocked out.

This is a thoroughly bad habit. Clauses are inserted by someone or another to deal with some minor grievance and they are incorporated into a Private Bill. There is nobody in the House particularly concerned to watch them, the Bill gets an unopposed Second Reading, goes upstairs, where four of our colleagues sit in a semi-judicial capacity, and unless somebody takes the trouble to expose the undesirability of some Clause, in the ordinary way it is accepted. The next year the same Clause is in 20 more Bills.

I hope the House will carry the Amendment, which will be a very good moral corrective for the promoters of Private Bills. Is there any need for the Clause? In 1875 the most important Act of our time was passed—the Public Health Act of that year. It has since been modernised, in 1936. In Sections 91 and 92, if my memory serves me correctly, powers are given for the local authority to inspect the district and abate nuisances. I was not in the least impressed when I read in these documents, sent to me by the Corporation of Rochester, that no general powers are known which enable the Corporation to claim protection for barber's clients from dirty equipment. I think if the medical officer of health for Rochester would try to find them—and I assume he has not done so up to now—he would be successful.

He has been very active in this matter. He sent a long memorandum, which he has prepared, in which he says this is likely to happen and that is likely to happen—and it is the most nonsensical memorandum any medical officer of health ever drafted. He was a kind of Old Moore; he knew what was going to happen, although there is no evidence of what did happen. Of course he has the powers. He has the power to enter any premises he likes in order to see whether there is any kind of nuisance being committed.

A great many local authorities are not fully acquainted with their powers under the Public Health Act. I wish more of them were more familiar with the Acts. They leave it to the town clerk to read them. Councillors never read an Act in their lives—but that is in passing. I do not blame them entirely.

Who is covered by this Clause? There is no definition of the business of a hairdresser or of a barber carrying on a business. I presume that if the matter came before the High Court for an interpretation, they would probably say it was anybody who did hairdressing for gain. But there are still a few people in this world who have the assistance of nurses, maids and valets to look after their children, and certainly in many public institutions there are such people looking after children's hair. If I had a young family and employed a nannie who, amongst other jobs, looked after my children's hair, would she be carrying on the business of a hairdresser?

I think, quite clearly, we should have to register every house in which there was somebody who looked after somebody else's hair for gain. I do not suppose the people who drafted the Bill thought of that. People who draft Private Bills often do not think of anything, in my judgment. The standard of the drafting of Private Bills is very much lower than that done by Parliamentary Counsel.

We are really saying that every house in Rochester where anybody who is employed in any kind of domestic capacity helps, in addition, to dress the children's hair should be registered. They say. "Oh, we would not do a silly thing like that. "I know it is silly, but they would have the duty to do it, and if the town clerk did not do it some agent provocateur, some strange animal, would compel him to do it.

I could go down to Rochester and find some friend of mine, a lady who is a sister of a prominent constituent of mine, who would be only too willing to act as an agent provocateur. I hear hon. and right hon. Members on both sides attacking monopolies, but when they see a little bit of monopoly in a Bill they are in favour of it, especially if it is a nationalised monopoly. Indeed, the only true monopoly which can exist is one with an Act of Parliament behind it. One cannot have a private enterprise monopoly; it is a contradiction in terms. But if we create one by an Act of Parliament it becomes a real monopoly. I am quite satisfied that this Clause is a step towards monopoly and as I have always been a convinced opponent of all monopolies, I hope very much that the House will carry the Amendment to leave out Clause 117.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Kinley (Bootle)

I suppose I had better begin by declaring an interest. though I no longer have it. For many years I was a more or less humble follower of the late and much lamented Sweeney Todd, and so from the inside, as it were, I want to draw the attention of the House to the desirability of leaving this Clause in the Bill. I and those who went before me have spent long and weary years trying to improve the efficiency, the skill, the standard of hygiene and the standard of education of those who were our fellow craftsmen. We tried, and have always tried, but we have so far never succeeded.

We desire that the public should in all their contacts with this profession be assured of a reasonable minimum standard of hygiene and skill. The public have no way of securing that except as a result of personal experience and disappointment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

The hon. Gentleman said that the public should be assured of a reasonable minimum standard of hygiene and skill. Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the byelaws to be made under this Clause will include qualifi- cations in hairdressing, or does he think that the Clause is unsatisfactory in that respect and should go further?

Mr. Kinley

I have been too long engaged in this kind of game to fall for that one. I am speaking of my own experience.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing about skill in the Clause, it is true, but the hon. Member who is addressing the House is entitled to say that he desires skill and cleanliness.

Mr. Kinley

I am supporting all that we as a trade have tried for years to secure and are still trying to secure. We cannot ask that Rochester or any other town shall include any qualification of skill, but we can agree that one of the things we have tried to secure and failed to secure should be secured, so far as the citizens of Rochester are concerned, by the passing of this Bill.

Whether in its effect the Clause will prove to be fully efficient is for the citizens of Rochester to discover from experience. They can make their own lives in their own way and their own decisions in the light of their experience. But, speaking for myself, as one with much experience of this trade and of local government, I have regretted over and over again when taking part in local government that we had no power to protect the general public by means of such a Clause as this. Therefore, on the grounds of my own trade experience and my experience as a local governor and also as a general citizen of the country, I hope the House will agree that Rochester shall have this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)

The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) suggested that I would speak because I happen to represent Rochester, and that I had no independence of mind. Let me say at once that I sit for both Rochester and Chatham. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman would have done in such circumstances, but, initially, I learned of this Bill from the Chatham Corporation when the town clerk asked me to oppose it. Chatham happens to be the other half of my constituency, and the City of Rochester subsequently came along and asked me to support the Bill; so I am, at least, exercising independence in the sense that I stand to please one section and the other not quite so much.

Perhaps I ought to explain that I addressed the Rotary Club in my constituency, when I told its members that I thought this Bill was a mistake. But once it was promoted, it was only right that there should be some agreement. I managed to see the town clerks of Rochester and Chatham who got together and made it easy for me to take the line I am taking tonight.

I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who is a very old and well-known Member of this House, for looking after particular interests which seem to upset Parliamentary procedure. If he were to give a good deal more of his time to arguing against the system whereby Private Bills are sent upstairs and thousands of pounds are paid in fees, I think he would do more good. I hope that in due course he will join me in an agitation against such a system.

This Clause to which objection has been taken was dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley). But may I say that the Rochester Corporation is really only concerned with public health. It has no other interest in this Clause than that, and it is backed by no less a body than the Department of State and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which say that in the interests of public health such Clauses as this might be considered.

The hon. Gentleman opposite placed the matter of cleanliness in two parts. For instance, if one finds that the floor is dirty then one can be pretty sure that the instruments are also dirty. We want to have registration so as to ensure that standards of hygiene shall exist.

The medical officer for Rochester is held in very high esteem by all the doctors of Kent and, I think I can say, of the country. The whole of the doctors in Kent have given him a most responsible position. It is his considered view that, as a result of dirtiness in barbers' shops, diseases arise—not only from unclean surroundings but from the use of dirty razors, clippers, brushes, towels, and things of that kind. I would assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) that, whatever arguments he may have about registration, this Clause is concerned with health.

Incidentally, I am surprised that he does not carry his principles farther and say that no profession should be registered and that no professional organisation should exist, and say that no business organisation should exist. I think that, if a principle is accepted, it should be taken to its logical conclusion. So I do hope that the House will allow this Clause and will not accept the Amendment—will allow what the local newspaper said about the Bill, "So much for so little." I agree with the contents of the leading article. We may, I hope, as a House give to the Rochester Corporation this Bill without further discussion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)

There is only one word I want to say. The model Clause has not necessarily to be accepted merely because it is the model Clause. It is up to the promoters of a Bill to prove that it is wanted in any particular district. In that respect I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) slightly over-stated the case when he said that it has the support of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Ministry did not give opposition or support. There is a model byelaw included in this particular instance, but as far as the Ministry and the Government are concerned, it is up to the promoters of the Bill to prove their case in their own way.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Can the hon. Gentleman say what observations, if any, the Ministry made to the Committee upstairs that was considering the Bill? Did they comment on this Clause at all?

Mr. Marples

The proceedings, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are available. There was nothing said by a Government Department. If the right hon. Gentleman has a copy before him, be will see that the case was mostly put forward by the promoters of the Bill,

and the four Members of this House took evidence and asked questions, and they did, undoubtedly, pass it. The Department itself gave no evidence before the Committee.

Mr. Ede

It is usual, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when these Bills are upstairs, for the various Government Departments concerned to make reports and comments to the Committee, quite outside the giving of evidence. Was any report made by the Department to the Committee that considered the Bill on this particular point?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry makes reports when it has specific objections. When it has no comments to make, it does not specifically make a report.

Mr. Ede

So at that stage the Department had no opposition to this particular part of the Bill, no matter what the attitude may have been on others?

Mr. Marples

That is exactly what I said—there was no opposition. It was up to the promoters of the Bill and to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham to prove their case. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham made his speech just before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) came in, perhaps.

Mr. Ede

I heard him.

Mr. Marples

The right hon. Gentleman said that this had the support of the Rochester and Chatham local authorities and went on to say that it had the support of the Ministry. In that, I think, he went a little farther than is the case. I say there was no opposition, but no support necessarily. It was a question of neutrality.

Mr. Ede

At any rate, it was benevolent.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 57.

Division No. 190.] AYES 17.47 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Bonn, Wedgwood Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Benson, G. Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Bing, G. H. C. Callaghan, L. J.
Ayles, W. H. Blackburn, F. Carmichael, J.
Baton, Miss Alice Bowles, F. G. Chetwynd, G. R
Clunie, J. Hubbard, T. F. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Collick, P. H. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Proctor, W. T
Daines, P. Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire) Pryde, D. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Janner, B Rankin, John
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S) Reeves, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Johnson, James (Rugby) Ross, William
Delargy, H.J. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Royle, C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Forman, J. C. Keenan, W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. King, Dr. H. M Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Gibson, C. W. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Sparks, J. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R. MacColl, J. E. Steele, T.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mclnnes, J Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hannan, W. Manuel, A. C. Thorneyeroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hargreaves, A. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wells, William (Walsall)
Hastings, S. Mitchison, G. R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hayman, F. H. Moyle, A. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Harbison, Miss M. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Hobson, C. R. Oldfield, W. H Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Oswald, T.
Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Kinley.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Raikes, H V.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe) Gower, H. R. Renton, D. L. M.
Baldwin, A. E. Gridley, Sir Arnold Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Brooman-White, R. C. Grimond, J. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Snadden, W. McN.
Butcher, H. W. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Spearman, A. C. M.
Cary, Sir Robert Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Holland-Martin, C J. Sutcliffe, H.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Holt, A. F. Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
'Crouch, R. F. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) McAdden, S. J. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Deedes, W. F. MoKibbin, A. J. Wellwood, W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Maclay, Hon. John White, Baker (Canterbury)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Duthie, W. S. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Wills, G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Fell, A. Maydon, Lt.-Commdr. S. L. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fisher, Nigel Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Sir Herbert Williams and
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Partridge, E. Mr. Powell.

Question put, and agreed to.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.