TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 24 November 1952 vol 508 cc47-188

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

On a point of order. Might I ask for information, Mr. Speaker, about what you propose to do? There are two Amendments to the Motion which is about to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman. Those Amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—in paragraph 1, leave out "seven," and insert "twelve"; and in paragraph 2, leave out "two" and insert "four." I do not know whether you propose to call them. If you do propose to call them, might I have some information? Ordinarily when an Amendment is moved the scope of the debate is narrowed; but need it necessarily be so in this case, for those who object to the Motion can say that they object to it whether it is in the extended form or in a shortened form.

Mr. Speaker

I intend to call the Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend. I think that the best course for the convenience of the House would be to proceed upon a general debate to start with on this Motion, and then later—I say, without wishing to bind myself or the House, somewhere about seven o'Clock—I will call the Amendments to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. The Amendments refer to the Committee stage and the Report stage. It occurred to me that there may be many hon. Members on either side of the House who would wish to discuss other aspects of the Motion besides these two stages. I should be unwilling to call an Amendment earlier in case that might unduly limit the scope of the debate.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

On the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has made, may I ask you, Sir, whether you propose to allow the debate to go somewhat wide after the Amendments have been moved? I think that, in the time left at our disposal—or what we anticipate will be left—it would be rather inconvenient if we were narrowly confined to the scope of the Amendments to be moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and if we could go rather wide in the subsequent debate I am sure that it would be to the good.

Mr. Speaker

That probably would meet the desire of the House. I shall watch and see how the debate progresses, and indicate as soon as I can when I propose to call the Amendments. I agree that it is probably the desire of the House as a whole to have as wide a debate on the Motion as is possible and in order.

4.1 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr Harry Crookshank)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Transport Bill—

1. 1. The Proceedings in Committee shall be completed in seven allotted days.
2. 2. The Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed in two allotted days.
3. 3. The Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock on that day.
4. 4. The Business Committee shall report their Recommendations to the House—
1. (a) as to the Proceedings in Committee, not later than Monday 1st December;
2. (b) as to the Proceedings on Consideration, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits in 1953.
5. 5. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the Recommendations of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which the Clauses, new Clauses, Schedules and new Schedules are to be taken in Committee.
6. 6. On an allotted day—
1. (a) Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past Ten of the clock for references to Ten of the clock;
2. (b) Proceedings which under this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the said Standing Order No. 1.
7. 7. If, on an allotted day, Proceedings on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after Seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion.
49
8. 8. If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any proceedings on the Bill which, under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time, shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
9. 9. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).
10. 10. Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall not apply to any allotted day.
11. 11. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.
12. 12. When the order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.
13. 13. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, including a Committee to which the Bill has been recommitted (whether as a whole or otherwise), the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
14. 14. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion at a particular time and have not previously been concluded, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at that time, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, also the question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a member of the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules) and any Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded and, in the case of any Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a member of the Government he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
15. 15. The Proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing this Order or a Resolution 50 of the Business Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced, and the last preceding paragraph of this Order shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill:

Provided that if the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the time at which they are to be brought to a conclusion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the Motion for the Adjournment. If any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any Private Business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the Private Business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded. 16. Nothing in this Order or in the Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
2. (b) prevent any Business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day, in accordance with the Standing Orders, if the Proceedings which under this Order or the Resolution are to be completed on that day have already been completed.

17. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government order of the day, "the Resolution of the Business Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House, and references to the Proceedings on Consideration or the Proceedings on Third Reading include references to any Proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal. I do not think I need amplify the statement, which is perfectly genuine and true, that the Government have a natural dislike and distaste for having to move such a Motion, and that dislike and distaste is not limited to "The Times." I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has brought with him his copy of this morning's issue of "The Times," and no doubt we shall have extracts from the leading article. I do not want to anticipate his speech, but I will say that we are just as unhappy at having to do this.

It is quite inevitable, in the circumstances, that this Motion should be moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have to make a speech largely on that subject, and it is no good shouting "Why?" at me in the first sentence. I shall certainly have something to say on that subject later, but I think that the House will be best assisted if I begin by explaining the Motion itself in the form in which it is found on the Order Paper, because it is rather new, compared with others dealing with Time-tables.

We have decided on this occasion to use the procedure of Standing Order No. 41 for setting up a Business Committee. This has never before been used right through an Allocation of Time Order. I personally, and the party to which I belong, have expressed our great doubts whether or not the plan as set out in the Standing Order is a good one.

I do not need to go into the whole import of that, for I explained it to the House in the debate on 23rd April on the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South to the Select Committee on Procedure. That Committee threw it out as not being a good idea. The right hon. Gentleman brought it back, and the proposal was still not agreed upon by that Committee, but eventually the right hon. Gentleman brought it to the House, and, though he did not have the full support of his own party it became a Standing Order.

It is still a Standing Order, and the Government think that this is a suitable occasion on which to see whether it does represent a more suitable machinery. If it is, and if it can work, and if we have to have other Allocation of Time Orders, I should be quite prepared, as I am sure others would be, to say that our original thoughts on this subject were wrong. As things are today, we are proposing to use this machinery, and it will be for the Business Committee, when the Motion is passed, to meet and to fix the actual allocation of time within the number of days decided upon by the Order of the House.

If one may use the language of this Bill, they will be trying to find "operable units" of time. We have found it necessary to put into the Order a certain amount of machinery paragraphs which have never appeared before. I do not think it is necessary to go into them; they are really for making effective the decision of the Committee, and so on.

The other change which I think I should bring to the notice of the House is a modification of something which we have discussed recently in dealing with the problem which arises when there is time lost—and I use that term in no derogatory sense—on an Allotted Day, either through statements, whether on business or other matters. As a result of the debate which we had in April, the House will remember that we tried out the experiment of putting forward the end of the period of the Allotted Day by the same number of minutes as had been lost after half-past three and before the House reached the business which was set down for the Allotted Day.

It has been put to us that this is not a very convenient procedure, because part of the result, at any rate, of a Time-table on the Clauses is that everybody knows when the Guillotine is going to fall, and they can make their own arrangements according to whether they want to be in the House to discuss the Amendments in which they are interested, and so on, but if the Guillotine falls one day at seven o'Clock the next day at 7.22 the next day at 7.48 and the next at 7.3, and so on, it is not so easy to say with certitude when a given part of the Bill is to be reached.

We have tried to get over that difficulty and yet not curtail the time available to the House, and we have suggested—again, it may only be an experiment, but we think that it is worth while—that we should extend the period of sitting for every Allotted Day by half an hour, and that, instead of going on until 10 o'Clock, it should be half past 10 o'Clock on each Allotted Day.

That means that an extra half-hour will be available. Whether any of that time will be taken up by statements to the House, I cannot tell, but, broadly speaking, one would hope that the average time, taken by statements before the House goes on to the business set down for the day will not be more than half an hour, and will not deprive hon. Members of the time which they expect to use for the business of the day. Therefore, if there were no statements on any Allotted Day, the effect would be that, over seven Allotted Days, there would be three and a half hours more debating time than under the old procedure, and, of course, to the extent that there were statements, the maximum time would thus be reduced.

All that I can say is that, as far as I can, I will assist the House in the matter, and that the Government will try to avoid making long statements on Allotted Days, and, of course, if it should happen to be a Thursday, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would also try to ensure that the discussion on business was not unduly prolonged, that would be in the interests of the debate that was to follow.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

The right hon Gentleman might also help us on Thursdays if he would give the House some intelligent answers.

Mr. Crookshank

I do not know that I need discuss that part of the arrangements any further. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think that this is a better solution than merely moving to put forward the time by so many minutes per Allotted Day.

Beyond that, I do not think that there is anything which the Government need to deal with, although, of course, it will be in the interests of everybody to send to the Business Committee the duty of allocating the time on the various days. There is no Schedule, as there has been in the past, in the Motion, and that, therefore, is not discussable on this occasion; at least, I suppose not.

The question arises, of course, as to whether the time which is proposed is adequate; given that there is to be an Allocation of Time Order, whether what we propose—seven days for the Committee stage, two days for Report and one day for Third Reading—is enough; and also whether a Time-table is necessary at all, and if so, upon what grounds.

If I may deal briefly with these points, on the length of time suggested for the debate, I should say that we shall come back to this Motion, and perhaps in some detail, when the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery moves his Amendments later on. But the Government's general proposals to make alterations in the existing Transport Act, and the various suggestions which have been put forward, have been debated in the House on more than one occasion already, and before the Bill can possibly receive the Royal Assent it, and its cognate problems, will have had the attention of Parliament over a very long period.

The Transport Act, 1947, was presented at the end of November, 1946, and received the Royal Assent early the following August; that is to say, it was before Parliament and the nation for only about eight months. On this occasion, the first time the subject-matter of transport reform came before Parliament was in the White Paper of 8th May. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is quite different."] That was the first time the general problem was brought before Parliament.

Again, we had a debate in July, on the Report of the Transport Commission, which was so very much cognate, apparently, in the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) accused my right hon. Friend of making a Second Reading speech on it. It was evidently considered to be very much in line with what Parliament would have to discuss further in detail.

Since then we have had the Bill presented and have had its Second Reading, and by no possibility can it become law until the spring. Certainly there will have been 11 months at least during which transport problems in relation to the Act of 1946 and its alteration will have been before Parliament. So it is not something which has suddenly been brought forward at the last moment.

Hon. Members may say, "Granted that, but how much time was available for the Transport Act, 1947, and how much time is proposed for this Bill?" I agree that it is extremely difficult to find any kind of yardstick to decide as between one Bill and another how much time should be given as compared with something else—it is very difficult to find any test—but the mere length of the Bill has some relationship to the time which can reasonably be allotted for its discussion. I merely give the House these facts. The Bill presented in 1946 consisted of 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules and occupied 136 pages of print, whereas the present Bill consists of 35 Clauses and three Schedules and occupies only 48 pages of print. If one is talking about the number of Clauses in a Bill or the number of pages on which a Bill is printed, this is a very much smaller affair.

The 1946 Act made vast changes over a very wide field and covered an enormous amount of financial provisions and the like, whereas this Bill—I am not arguing the Bill, for that would be out of order—makes alterations within the framework of the existing Act, and great parts of the 1947 Act are not touched at all by it. To that extent, one can say that it is a much smaller affair when it comes up for consideration by Parliament.

Granted that difference in the number of Clauses and pages—I will come back later to the length of the two Measures—on the previous occasion there were 31 sittings of the Standing Committee, occupying 76½ hours. What is proposed here? Seven days in Committee of the whole House is a period varying between 45½ and 49 hours, according to the amount of time which may be lost at the beginning of any sitting. So we are offering in Committee a maximum of 49 hours compared with the 76 hours which was all that was allowed under the 1947 Act, which by any kind of test was immeasurably longer, larger, more far-reaching and more complicated than this Bill.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considered the time allotted in 1946–47 was satisfactory? If he did not, how can he say, on his own argument, that what he now proposes is satisfactory?

Mr. Crookshank

It is not a matter of whether one is satisfactory or not. I am giving these figures quite objectively to see what sort of comparison there is. There is no other kind of comparison that one can give, because everyone has his own assessment of the importance of any Clause or any Amendment in any Bill. For instance, many hon. Gentlemen think that some Friday Bill in which they are interested is far more important than the whole of the Government legislation for the Session. One cannot work out the relevant importance in any scientific way. I am merely giving these figures as the facts of the case.

Turning to the problem whether a Time-table is necessary, and whether it is necessary on the Bill, I recollect that when I announced it from this Box last Thursday, the Opposition seemed to be very shocked. When they tried to press me as to why we were doing this, I said, first, that what had been going on during the last week was a sufficient answer, and second, that we had been threatened with the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings.

This led to a considerable outcry from hon. Gentlemen opposite at my ever having said any such thing. I took it, I hope, in good part, because I remembered that in saying what I said I was merely giving an accurate paraphrase of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South had said on a similar occasion. He said, "What has been going on?" That was the first thing that I said and the first thing to which objection was taken.

Debates like this can end up by being a series of cross-quotations, and I do not want that to happen, but I would remind the House of the view which the Leader of the Opposition took after the General Election of 1950 when he had only a very small majority supporting him; not that ours at the moment is as enormous as all that, but his was smaller. He then said in this House: The duty of the Government is clear. The Government must be carried on, and, however difficult it may be, it is in the interest of us all that government should be carried on effectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 65.] Part of our view of carrying on effectively is carrying this Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as may be, if the House permits us.

After the 1951 General Election, this is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about the attitude of the Opposition: … I want to say a word on the attitude of the Opposition. The Opposition will be vigilant but not factious. We shall not oppose merely for the sake of opposition.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 67.] I pause on that, because that was what I was referring to when I said something about what had been going on recently.

There is a certain number of Measures which all Parliaments have to deal with whatever Government are in office at this time of year. One of them is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Second Reading of which has for years and years, to my own knowledge, been treated by everybody as a formal stage so that the House might get to the Committee stage and put down the Amendments, for they are the only debatable part of the Bill, as Mr. Speaker pointed out the other day.

We put the Bill down for Second Reading on four occasions. On 12th, 13th and 17th November objection was taken each night. On 18th November, after suspending the rule, we were able to get the Bill, and then only after a debate lasting one and three-quarter hours on it and the Money Resolution. That may or may not be opposing for the sake of opposition, which the right hon. Gentleman said he would not do, but it looks suspiciously like it. Anyhow I think that, without using an unkind word, I could say that there was a certain dilatoriness in getting on with that Bill, and there has been a certain dilatoriness with one or two other Measures which have come before the House since we resumed.

On the second point, that the Government had been promised the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings, I take it that no one on the other side of the House denies that that in fact was done. If it is denied, I need only remind hon. Members opposite that at the Albert Hall mass demonstration the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that they, in the House of Commons and in the country would offer the greatest possible opposition to the de-nationalisation Measure.

Hon. Members

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Crookshank

No one is saying that it is wrong. I am merely calling the attention of the House to the fact that when I said it the other day there seemed to be some question about it. I am merely pointing out that both the Leader of the Opposition, and the Deputy Leader on Second Reading, said the same sort of thing. So there is a very clear intention of opposing this Bill very strenuously, and apparently hon. Members opposite were shocked because I referred to it.

When I used those words, and, of course, reading them in connection with the possibility of a Time-table which I announced on Thursday and which I am now moving, it is very much the same situation as when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South was moving a Time-table in November, 1948, on the Iron and Steel Bill. But, of course, there is always this great and classic difference that on that occasion he was moving a Time-table for a Standing Committee, that is to say, a microcosm of the House; that is, whatever happened, not more than 50 or 60 hon. Members, according to the composition of the Committee, could possibly deal with the details. We are not doing that.

Mr. H. Morrison

Why not?

Mr. Crookshank

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that important major Bills of this kind should be sent to a Standing Committee? If so, what has become of his argument that we are curtailing the rights of democracy? Surely if to do it here is to curtail those rights, to do it upstairs is to curtail them about 10 times as much because of the difference in the composition of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Morrison

How can I object to important Bills, provided that they are not financial Bills or Bills of constitutional significance, going upstairs when as Leader of the House I sent quite a number upstairs? If the right hon. Gentleman will move or could move—I do not know whether he can now—that this Bill goes to a Standing Committee upstairs, may I assure him that we will support him?

Mr. Crookshank

I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman will, because that is what he did before.

Mr. Morrison

What is the point?

Mr. Crookshank

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education used the word frequently, though I am not quite sure that I accept his adjective, when he said the whole point was that this was really a constitutional problem, that major matters such as nationalisation and denationalisation which affect everybody in the country should of right and necessity be discussed on the Floor of the House. We are merely going back to what we think is the right procedure in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "More time."] Hon. Gentlemen can go on saying, "More time." It is more time in the sense of relieving the House and the Committee of the whole House of the duty of discussing a Bill in detail, but the whole point is that if it goes upstairs it cannot be discussed by more than 50 or 60 hon. Members.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

How can 600 Members discuss it in 30 hours?

Mr. Crookshank

The hon. Member has been here quite long enough to know that if any business is transacted on the Floor of the House, whether in Committee of the whole House or in one of the other stages of a Bill, there is an opportunity for all hon. Members, should they catch Mr. Speaker's eye, to address the Committee or the House.

Mr. Ross

Ask the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Crookshank

If the Bill goes upstairs then automatically some 550 Members are deprived of that possibility altogether.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West) rose—

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

Why not stop Committees altogether?

Mr. Crookshank

No, it is really no good pursuing that point, which is extraordinarily obvious. Hon. Members are quite entitled to interrupt, but it is not necessary that I should give way every time. I was merely dealing with the point that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South and his hon. Friends appeared to be very much upset and shocked because I referred to threatened opposition before introducing this Motion today.

But this is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying on the corresponding occasion, corresponding in that there was a Time-table but different in that the Bill on that occasion was going upstairs: The Opposition have declared, as is their right, that they will fight and oppose this Bill from the beginning to the end. Therefore, we have to face that position. We seek to get this Bill through. That is what it was introduced for. Then it has been said in "The Times," and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will read it out, that we ought to have waited and seen how we got on before introducing this Motion. There is an old French fable about an animal which is very naughty because when it is attacked it defends itself. I was pretty well attacked and was a victim in April of this year, and that is exactly what we did. We had no intention of time-tabling the National Health Service Bill. We let it have its run here. We had three days in Committee and 21 hours debating time, in which we passed five effective lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to do that again? Of course he does not, because he answered the argument himself on that same occasion on 25th November, 1948, when he said: It may be argued, as, indeed, it has been on some other occasions in consultations that I have had. 'Why do it now? Why not wait for a few weeks and see what progress the Standing Committee makes upstairs?' We had better be realistic about the situation. First of all, this is, I understand, a contentious Measure. It certainly sounded so, when I wound up the Debate on Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1429.] This had not happened to the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, but he then came along and introduced an Allocation of Time Motion before any words were spoken in Committee. We are doing exactly the same on this occasion, and it certainly does not lie in his mouth to contradict us or to make any observations whatever on that subject. I was asked on Thursday whether there was any precedent for doing this. This is a precedent so far as it goes, except that—

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

The right hon. Gentleman did not know anything about it on Thursday.

Mr. Crookshank

I knew all about it, but it is customary to wait until the debate to explain the whole story instead of having a cross-examination on Thursday. If the House wants precedents I have them here. I do not propose to read them out but I make this comment—that in the last 25 years there have been nine Bills on which a Time-table on the Committee stage in the whole House was started before the Committee met at all. Of these nine occasions, three were under a Labour Government and one of these three, of all things, was on the Finance Bill. The year was 1931 in case the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South wants to know. Therefore, to accuse us of doing anything unusual or unprecedented or outrageous which hon. Members have never thought of doing, is really just speaking without looking at the book.

I think it is quite clear that the general circumstances of the time, the narrow majority, the desirability of taking matters of high importance on the Floor of the House, make it necessary that, in the view of the Government, this Bill should be passed as soon as Parliament will permit. After all, it is a Bill which we have spoken about for a good many months, and we have been threatened with unremitting opposition right along the line. We all know that as the Session goes on we are going to have some interruption in the normal Parliamentary time owing to the Coronation, and it is, in the view of the Government, necessary that a major Bill such as this should be got through.

We prefer to do it this way, by doing it at the start, rather than having, as we did on the National Health Service Bill, three or four very late nights and achieving nothing. In that I am fortified by the views, at any rate, of one hon. Member on the other side of the House, the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), who has put a Motion on the Order Paper deprecating any late night Sittings at all. Here is one way in which we are trying to help the hon. Gentleman's theory by Sitting on an Allotted Day on allotted business rather than after half-past ten.

This Motion is in a different form. I have explained that we have accepted as an experiment this time the proposals which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South got the House to put into Standing Orders. We will see how that works. If it works well, then it will be something which we can think about, on whichever side of the House we sit, on any future occasion when a Time-table is required. That we should do it before the Committee stage starts is strengthened by ample precedent, with which the Labour Party is just as much concerned as those on these benches, or the Liberal Party, who, of course, in the sum total of years have introduced far more Time-table Motions than anybody else because they were in office longer, at a time when they had Measures which they, like we do this time, thought it was necessary to get through Parliament.

Finally, because we do not wish the time of the House to be wasted in these preliminaries, we introduce the Motion now before the Committee stage is begun. But I repeat that if we have to have an Allocation of Time Order at all, there is the most justification for one when part of the plan is debate by a Committee of the whole House. That is what we are doing here. We are not sending the Bill upstairs; we are keeping it here. There will be more opportunities for more hon. Members to speak—[Interruption.] I am not going to say it all over again, but if anyone wants a further suggestion by which hon. Members can have their opportunities, it is that shorter speeches should be made. Because I do not want to fall into the error of making too long a speech now, I will conclude.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House seemed to get some satisfaction out of referring not only to precedents, as he claimed, in respect of the Labour Government, but particular satisfaction from a greater number of precedents in respect of Liberal Governments. Of course, the Prime Minister, who sat beside him, must accept responsibility for those days, because he was a member of those Liberal Governments. I see the Prime Minister has now left us. I take no offence if the right hon. Gentleman has other things to do.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said that he has a natural dislike of bringing in this Motion and that, in fact, he is unhappy about bringing it in, and that his right hon. and hon. Friends are all unhappy. I am bound to say that last Thursday I did not think the right hon. Gentleman looked unhappy. I thought he look a bit grim, determined and somewhat dictatorial, and conducted himself accordingly. As for his hon. Friends, when he announced the Guillotine they cheered and they smiled the smiles of gentlemen who were happy about the announcement. They were delighted. Indeed, I called attention to it, so that it should be on the record in case there should be other expressions of their views at some future time when a future Government may unhappily have to bring in an Allocation of Time Order.

Let it not be forgotten that hon. Members opposite—we were all here and we all saw—looked very pleased. They were smiling with delight and pleasure at the announcement that the Government were bringing in an Allocation of Time Order. Therefore, they were crocodile tears that the right hon. Gentleman was shedding this afternoon, and, if I may say so, it is in the field of humbug and hypocrisy—[Interruption.] I did not know that we were getting to the point when a little vigour in adjectives was out of order. I do not think so. But I do say that it is a little beyond the point for the right hon. Gentleman now to claim that he has a natural dislike of doing this and that he is unhappy, when we remember his demeanour last Thursday and the unbounded delight and pleasure with which hon. Members behind him heard the announcement of this Allocation of Time Order.

I am glad that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has permitted Standing Order No. 41 to operate. I thought it was right when we brought it in. I thought that it should have operated on an earlier occasion when the Government would not let it operate. Let us hope that it will succeed. So far as we are concerned, we shall enter into the discussions in the Business Committee in the spirit in which I introduced the Standing Order, and I hope that the Government in the Business Committee will accept the view which I expressed as Leader of the House, namely, that the party which should have the major voice in the over-all allocation of time determined by the House should be the Opposition and not Ministerial Members. I think that is right.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he has given us another concession, namely, that instead of 10 o'clock operating, it will be 10.30, and he said that if there are no statements we can have another 3½ hours. That is not much, even if we get it. I shall be very much surprised if there are not Government statements on a number of these days when the Bill is before the House. I think it is quite improper for the right hon. Gentleman to have said that Thursday cannot be helped because there is the Business statement, but that the Opposition and, indeed, Members generally can save time for the Transport Bill if it happens that day by refraining from putting any more Questions than they can possibly help on the Business of the House.

That statement is in line with the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made last week about the purpose behind this Motion. Naturally, I do not want Members to waste time on the Business statement, but the Business statement is a very important occasion. It is an occasion upon which Members on both sides of the House have an opportunity of raising points for consideration, and it is an occasion of constitutional significance.

Mr. Crookshank

May I interrupt? I was not trying to do anything except to point out that in recent years the period devoted to that short debate has increased out of all knowing. When the right hon. Gentleman and I were first in the House it was probably an interchange of three or four questions between the two Leaders, and no one else. I am not saying it is a bad thing that it has developed, but it has entirely changed. I suggested—I only threw it out as a suggestion—that if there was an Allotted Day which was a Thursday, possibly one might revert nearer to the old practice on such occasions. I did not put it higher than that.

Mr. Morrison

I still say that it was an unfortunate observation, because the rights of hon. Members are involved. The right hon. Gentleman really should not make the point he has just made, because the Member of the House who used up more time on the Business statement—I have known him to use up to half an hour, or it may be even an hour—was the present Prime Minister, when he inaugurated what became known as the "Children's Hour." Therefore, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman next sees the Prime Minister he will reprove him and say, "What an unfortunate thing for us that you started up all this nonsense when you were Leader of the Opposition."

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill of 1946 which became the Act of 1947 was before Parliament for eight or nine months and that we have had a longer period for the consideration of this problem, from the presentation of the White Paper onwards. It is an extraordinary doctrine that if the Government want to have an excuse to rush a Bill through and to get a Guillotine Motion through under tight conditions, all they have to do is to slip a White Paper in some months in advance and possibly also a dummy Bill.

It is another indication of the fact that the mind of the Leader of the House is not a true Parliamentary mind and does not look at the problem from the point of view of the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole. In any case, it has been urged by the Minister of Transport that the new Bill is a very different one from that which he first introduced. For example, he was very boastful of the fact that the changes in the system of railway charges in regard to fares and freights was a materially important change in the Bill which enabled him to change the basis of the levy that was proposed. Therefore, he says, this is a materially different Bill.

But I submit that the whole argument in that respect is irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill took up time on Second Reading which was without precedent from about 1866—or for a long time. I am advised that this was an exceptional order of business. It was taken after the Public Works Loans Bill, and I am advised that this is unusual. Moreover, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said something during the discussion that made it more than ever desirable that the order of the business should be changed. Therefore, it appears that it was owing to the incompetence of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned our Iron and Steel Bill, as a precedent in that respect to which I will refer in the course of these observations.

The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated—I am not clear in what connection—has a small majority. That is true in regard to the House of Commons; but in the country more votes were cast for Labour candidates than for Conservatives at the last Election. We start on the basis—as has been pointed out by my right hon. and hon. Friends before—that in 1951 we ourselves limited our legislative activities because of the Parliamentary facts—a close majority and the general situation—and it is therefore really unwise on the part of Her Majesty's present advisers to bring in these two extraordinarily controversial Bills with a very small Parliamentary majority and when they are the second and not the first party in the country as far as the electorate is concerned.

That is especially so when the legislation which is concerned has no relevance to more urgent and important matters with which the House and the Government should be concerning themselves. I cannot develop any arguments upon the merits of the Bill, as that would be out of order, but this argument is relevant to the fact that if the Government have no clear mandate for bringing in the Bill—and they have not—and if their Parliamentary majority is small—and that is another reason why they should not burden the House with destructive and controversial legislation of this order—they most certainly have no right to move this particularly brutal Guillotine Motion this afternoon.

The Guillotine is unpleasant anyway. I do not like it, whether I am in power or in opposition, and I would hope that all good Parliamentarians disliked the beastly thing. But to bring in the Guillotine on a Measure for which the Government have no mandate, in a Parliament in which they have a small majority, after an election in which the Opposition had a bigger electoral vote than they had, is really contrary to the spirit of Parliamentary democracy and good Parliamentary government.

Therefore, we say that they have no moral justification for what they are doing and that no good purpose is served. The right hon. Gentleman has been very nervous about the fact that I might quote "The Times." "The Times" happens to be one of those newspapers for which I have a certain respect.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

The right hon. Gentleman was reading it during Question time.

Mr. Morrison

I was pulled up about that by the hon. Member for the Croydon Chamber of Commerce. I was looking up these quotations. "The Times' is a newspaper for which I think all of us, irrespective of party, have a considerable respect. Of course, we have more respect for it when it says something that we like than when it says something that we do not like; but I say that, taking "The Times" by and large, and even tolerating it when it does not agree with my own views, it is a great newspaper and its views are of importance, especially on a matter of this sort. In its leading article today—and the right hon. Gentleman does not like me quoting this; he has been looking forward to it with some distaste and displeasure—

Mr. Crookshank indicated dissent.

Mr. Morrison

Oh, yes. It has evidently been on his mind and fraying his nerves ever since breakfast time. The main leading article says—and I agree with it: Since Mr. Crookshank's statement, it has been announced that under the 'guillotine' motion only seven days will be allocated to the committee stage of the Bill. So to the Opposition's first grievance, that the 'guillotine' is to be introduced before it has been shown to be necessary, is added a second, that the time allotted is much shorter than it was reasonable to expect. Theoretically there is an argument for introducing the 'guillotine' from the very beginning of the committee stage, for the main difficulty as it usually operates is that too much time is spent on the initial clauses, before the 'guillotine' has been invoked, and too little on the subsequent clauses, which are subject to the 'guillotine.' But the 'guillotine' is meant to be an exceptional instrument, to be used only after it has been shown to be necessary. To assume that it will be necessary, even before the committee stage has begun, is to change its character. A case could nevertheless be made out for using the 'guillotine' from the start, if the time allocated to the whole committee stage were reasonable. This cannot be claimed for the seven days which the Government are offering. The proposals in the Transport Bill have already appeared in three different guises, and the Government announced during the second reading debate their willingness to amend it yet again. Their own supporters in the House are seeking substantial alterations. There is every reason, therefore, since the Government do not claim that the Bill is perfect, for discussing it thoroughly in committee. That is powerful and important reasoning, coming from a very great newspaper. The leading article adds—and I ask the House to listen to this: The aftermath of a bad Bill may affect the national efficiency. Amidst all the party political fighting it cannot be forgotten that the nation's well-being largely depends on the way its major undertakings are run. Those are responsible words, from a great and responsible newspaper, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take them into account.

The right hon. Gentleman argued, in the comparison with 1947, that this Bill is a smaller Bill; that it is, like the domestic servant's child, only a little one. Well, it is bigger than that. It is a Bill of some substance in size. It really is an absurd argument to put forward the case that the Allocation of Time Order—to do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he did not take the argument as far as this, but he did plead it in aid with his other arguments—can be determined, at any rate, in part, and in substantial part, by what we may call the acreage covered by the various Clauses of the Bill.

I do not accept the acreage argument. Let me run the argument to what, I admit, would be an extreme. This is a Bill which is to give many discretionary powers to the Minister of Transport. Supposing that it gave complete discretionary power to the Minister of Transport, supposing the Bill read: "Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. … That in relation to the Transport Act of 1947 the Minister of Transport may do what he likes to amend, alter and reshape that Act." I should call that a Fascist or a Communist Measure, and so, I think, to do them credit, would hon. Gentlemen opposite. But supposing that were done: on the argument of the acreage, that ought to go through on about a Friday and there would be little time needed for the consideration of that Bill.

Therefore, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that here again—it runs through all that he said last Thursday and all he has said today—he is on the slippery slope away from the best principles of Parliamentary Government and of Parliamentary democracy. I have put the case where the acreage is negligible and hardly exists but where the case for lengthy debate and discussion, not only for days, but for weeks and weeks, would be strengthened because such a Bill would threaten the fundamentals of the British Constitution. This Bill cannot be judged on its number of Clauses and Schedules. It cannot be argued on the acreage basis.

Why do I say that? This Bill is what I call an undoing Bill. It is a Bill that undoes things. [An HON. MEMBER: "A wrecking Bill."] As one of my hon. Friends says, it is a wrecking Bill, and that is not an unfair description. It is proceeding, not to reorganise and positively to organise the transport industry. It is proceeding to disorganise the transport industry, to disintegrate that industry and to unscramble a great national organisation which was created by the Act of 1947 and which has been steadily developing ever since.

Our Bill, on the other hand—hon. Members opposite may disagree with it, and I understand that they did, and they were entitled to do so—was positive. It was doing something. It was creating a new organisation. Hon. Members opposite may not have liked the new organisation that was to be created, but that is what our Bill was doing. It was positively evolutionary in character. It contemplated that there must be time for the creation and building up of something; but this is a totally different Bill.

I am not arguing whether the Bill is right or wrong—indeed, I should not be allowed to get far with that argument; that is not the point. The point is that this is a Bill of another nature, which is undoing an industry, which is taking something away from the British Transport Commission and which is imperilling all sorts of situations. All this has to be taken into account. The process of undoing legislation, of unscrambling a great public authority, and of disorganisation and disintegration, require, I submit, even more time and more consideration than policies of positive and constructive advance.

Therefore, this Bill is liable to create chaos and confusion if it is not well handled. We say, therefore, that there is a case for more time for the consideration of this Bill on Committee and Report than in the case of the Bill of 1947.

There are two Amendments in the names of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the Leader of the Liberals, and of one of his hon. Friends: In line 3, leave out "Seven," and insert "Twelve," and in line 4, leave out "two," and insert "four." We are glad that those Amendments have been put down. We shall vote for them when they come to the Division—naturally—but, of course, that will be entirely without prejudice to our voting against the Guillotine as a whole when the Question comes to be put, because there are two points to be considered. One is the principle of the Guillotine at all in relation to the Bill, to which we are opposed and to which, I hope, hon. Members are opposed, but in so far as Amendments are moved to improve the time, naturally we shall support those who move these Amendments.

The iron and steel precedent has been quoted. Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned it. I must reveal the true situation to the House, which in the ordinary way I should not have done. First, that Bill was going upstairs. I think it was right and legitimate to go upstairs, as the other socialisation Bills went upstairs also. I took the view, and I still take it, that in the case of Bills of a predominantly financial character or involving constitutional principles, like the Ireland Bill or the Supplies and Services Bill, it is right that they should be taken on the Floor of the House; but as for other Bills, in the ordinary way, subject to the Government and the House at the time, I do not see why they should not go upstairs.

At any rate, the Iron and Steel Bill went upstairs. As far as we are concerned, we do not mind this Bill going upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot make that point and then scorn the idea of sending this Bill upstairs. Nor do I believe that he has the slightest consideration in principle as to whether this Bill is taken upstairs or downstairs.

There is only one real reason why the right hon. Gentleman is not taking the Bill upstairs. It is because he would have a majority of one in the Standing Committee if he took it upstairs. On the other hand, the Government did take the brewers' Bill upstairs, and, therefore, the precedents are a little bit mixed.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

After having it on the Floor first.

Mr. Morrison

As my right hon. Friend reminds me, they had it on the Floor of the House first. The right hon. Gentleman therefore will forgive me in saying that, having regard to that experience, when he put the Bill on the Floor and then took it upstairs, he is not taking this one upstairs as a matter of principle. Quoting the Prime Minister about another Bill that was introduced by a minority Labour Government, I should be glad if we could take the Bill upstairs and wring its neck. We do not mind the Bill going upstairs. Therefore, we do not take the same line as the former Opposition which opposed these Bills going upstairs. Take it upstairs, and we will do the best we can with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The worst."] Therefore, we say that the question of going upstairs or on the Floor vis-à-vis the Iron and Steel Bill is irrelevant.

But what happened about the Iron and Steel Bill? In this case, the Government decide flatly that the Guillotine is coming down, and they decide flatly that it shall be seven days in Committee and two days on Report. In the case of our Iron and Steel Bill we had to consider not only the indication of the Opposition that they were going to fight it with great vigour but the experience we had had, again upstairs, with a Committee on another Bill, namely, the Gas Bill. Hon. Members who were Members of that Committee will remember that that Standing Committee, owing to the tactics of the Opposition, led by Mr. Brendan Bracken—

Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)

S and Z Amendments.

Mr. Morrison

What?

Mr. Ede

Whether "nationalisation" should be spelt with an s or a z.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I was not a Member of the Committee, but if he was, he will have had reason to remember. So I take it that there was an Amendment to change the spelling of "nationalisation" Those were the points to which the Committee degenerated under the incitement of the Opposition at that time.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

If hon. Members refer to HANSARD and do a calculation of the conversion of the length of printed matter to time, they will find that no more than five minutes of the time of the Committee were taken on that Amendment. That is so.

Hon. Members

Hours.

Mr. Morrison

I was not there, and, therefore, I cannot argue about that with the authority of my hon. Friends who were, and who say the matter went on two hours or two and a half hours, but the fact that such an Amendment was moved is an illustration of how far the Opposition could go, and I should be ashamed if an hon. Member on this side were ever to move an Amendment of that character. I deprecate it.

That Committee not only met mornings, afternoons and evenings, which I thought was about the limit for a Standing Committee upstairs, but it went right through the night—two nights running. I did go up and have a look at them once or twice, which I thought was a kindly and proper and dutiful action on my part as Leader of the House, to see how they looked, and I must say that I was really not proud of the Parliamentary institution when it was driven to such a degree of work that it was difficult for men, quite understandably—for men on both sides—even to keep their eyes open. That is not the way in which legislation should be passed. In the light of that experience, which I thought was disgraceful, and which was created by the Conservative Party—

Mr. J. D. Murray (Durham, North-West)

Will my right hon. Friend allow me? Is he aware that the Tories on that particular occasion adopted a rota system so that there were not more than three of them in the Committee at one time? It was scandalous treatment which they gave to the Gas Bill.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He shows what the motive was, and that motive was to try to wear our people out. It reinforces what was said in relation to Prayers by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) on some earlier occasion.

We had had this experience with the Gas Bill shortly before the Iron and Steel Bill. We could not ignore it. We had to take it into account. We had to realise that it was wholly probable that we should go through the same experience. That cannot be said by the Government in this connection. But, even so, I did meet the leaders of the Opposition parties and explained to them the situation, and I did say to them that we must make some arrangements, but that I should be most happy to enter into a voluntary agreement as to a Time-table, and that we should be as conciliatory as we could in working out the details. The Opposition—I am not making any point against them in that respect—preferred not to make any arrangement. But we did make the offer.

This is a different situation today from that. We have a Motion put on the Paper without any offer of consultation about possible arrangements of a voluntary character. In view of the circumstances, we could hardly have done anything other than what we did in regard to our Iron and Steel Bill, but the circumstances then were different from what they are now. As to the two other Guillotines of the Labour Government, if my memory serves me aright, both were put down after the Committee stage had begun and in the light of experience in Committee on the Bill.

Let us compare the allocations of time for the Bill of 1946, which became the Act of 1947, and for this Bill. I repudiate entirely the right hon. Gentleman's claim that this Bill ought to have less time devoted to it than that, and I do so for the reasons which I have stated and the case which I have established. What happened? For Second Reading of our Transport Bill we gave three days. The Government for this Transport Bill have given two days only—a reduction of 33⅓ per cent. A lot of speakers were cut out, including spokesmen of the workpeople engaged in this industry whose livelihood was very much at stake. [An HON. MEMBER: "Conservatives, too."] And a lot of Conservatives were cut out, too, which was unfortunate. The Committee upstairs on our Bill held—I make it 34 Sittings. The right hon. Gentleman makes it 31, but I will not quarrel about that, because we have the same total of hours.

Mr. Crookshank

Which is odd.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman says it is odd. That shows what a pessimist he is, and what a lack of cheerfulness he has in his heart. We make the total, and he makes it, 76 hours—I think that is right—which is roughly equivalent to 12 ordinary Parliamentary days. Under the Government's proposals here, if we run from 3.30 to 10.30—seven times seven makes 49 hours. As against those 76 hours. But there will be some time off because we do not always start the Orders at 3.30, however well we behave ourselves. Therefore, we get on this Bill somewhere between 45 and 50 hours as against roughly 76 hours on that Bill—76 hours; roughly equivalent to about 12 days. We gave three days to the Report stage. This Government are giving two days. For Third Reading we gave one day, and the Government are proposing one day as well. In the circumstances, we really think that the time to be available is wrong.

Now let us consider, just shortly, the amount of things that have to be considered. The list I shall give is by no means exhaustive. Any hon. Member is capable of thinking of other things. But let us consider the scope of this Bill. There is, for example, what we call the sell-out of road haulage. There is the method of the sell-out; there is the extent of it—whether the Transport Commission or the Executives should be permitted to retain more of road haulage than is proposed in the Bill. All sorts of things arise out of that. There is the work of the Disposal Board and the composition of the Disposal Board—whether we should put men interested in the industry on the Disposal Board without any adequate protective provisions as to excluding their interests. That is important.

There is the whole and utter uncertainty about road passenger transport and the extraordinary powers the Minister is claiming. He may do this, that or the other, or require the Commission to do this, that or the other. All over this Bill the Minister is spread. This road passenger business is profoundly important. It is not only that the Minister has sweeping powers in respect of road passenger transport, but all over the Bill there are provisions that the Minister may do this, that the Minister may direct, that schemes are subject to the approval of the Minister, that he may require this, that or the other.

I remember bringing in the London Passenger Transport Bill in the Labour minority Government of 1929 to 1931, and the Conservative Party then were keen on keeping politicians out of the administration of the Act, and pointed out the number of times the Minister of Transport was mentioned. I forget how many it was. It was quite a fair number. Yet the powers I was proposing to take for myself were very limited. They had to be in a Parliament of that sort, and I would wish them to be not more extensive than was reasonably required. But these powers for this Minister are not matters of detail; they are matters which ought to command a Parliamentary Bill. There are other matters which ought to require a Motion to be submitted to the House for affirmative approval.

This reactionary revolutionary—because that is what he is; there are revolutionaries of more than one sort; there are revolutionaries of the Right and revolutionaries of the so-called Left, but they are all called "Right" at the end of the day if they are the wrong sort of revolutionaries; the right hon. Gentleman is a reactionary revolutionary—this reactionary revolutionary is deliberately in this Bill taking for himself powers which ought to be vested in Parliament, either legislatively or by affirmative Resolution. Talk about the new despotism! What Lord Hewart would say about all this, in the light of what he said about much milder delegated functions, I do not know. The more one reads this Bill and the more one sees the powers the Minister proposes to take, the more one is, as a Parliamentarian, shocked. There are other Ministerial powers which it is proposed should be taken under the Bill.

Another subject of great importance is the levy, which was described originally as the keystone to the Bill. The keystone has been messed about with a bit since it was originally introduced. That wants adequate debate; and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to debate it as well, which is another thing. Then there is the whole administrative process of the Bill for the transfer of the undertakings so as not to create too much of an hiatus, so as not to put trade, industry and commerce into difficulties by creating muddle and confusion. This, indeed, is one of the main points of criticism of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce. Well, that wants discussing.

There is the re-organisation of the railways, and the question whether that should be statutorily fixed in the way the Government propose or in other ways, or whether the real point could have been met by suitable and acceptable measures of decentralisation by the British Transport Commission itself. There is the proposed abolition of Executives. The railwaymen are very worried about the abolition of the Railway Executive, and the road transport workers are worried about the abolition of the Road Haulage Executive and who is going to do their work. Here again the Minister is taking extensive powers to abolish or preserve the Executives. Well, all that wants discussing.

There is the new and revolutionary proposal—it may be right or wrong—as to railway fares and charges, to remove the railway undertakings from the degree of control to which they were formerly subjected, but not to bring corresponding powers of control, even the new powers of control as modified, on to road haulage. All that wants discussing. So do the charging powers in respect of road haulage.

Hon. Members on this side who are associated with trade unions, who in turn are associated with transport workers of all sorts, road, rail, inland waterways, and so on, also want proper time in which to debate and discuss with the House the protective Clauses affecting workpeople, both as to their conditions of labour and for compensating them if they are displaced and safeguarding them in their jobs. Then there is the composition of the British Transport Commission, which is an important matter.

I thought the Conservative Party were very keen on looking after Scotland. That is what they claim. I do not accept it, but that is what they have been talking about. My hon. Friends, and hon Members opposite, will want time to discuss the Scottish application of this Bill. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), who does not sit on this side of the House, but who is Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party Committee on Transport, raised the point about some new authority in Scotland with wider powers than are provided for in the Bill. He is supported in this by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), the former Minister of Transport, who wants a substantial proportion of road transport retained by the-Commission, especially in Scotland. He said in the debate, and the Government themselves agreed, that special circumstances apply to Scotland. Indeed, there are some special features applying to Wales which should concern the Minister for Welsh Affairs. All this the Scottish Members naturally wish to debate.

In fact, some of my hon. Friends have an idea in their minds—I am not pronouncing upon it—that they might wish to move Scotland out of the application of this Bill altogether, because they argue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) so ably argued, that the degree of integration in Scotland is pretty high, and that Scotland supplies a clear case for the principles of the 1947 Act. Following my right hon. Friend's speech, they may wish to move that Scotland be excluded.

There is a responsible body of opinion, not of a party political character, which has put forward proposals and would like the House to give them consideration, including the Scottish Council for Industry, and the chambers of commerce. Therefore, my Scottish friends argue that it would not be illegitimate for them to claim a day in Committee for the Scottish aspect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] We might expect to hear that from Scotsmen. At any rate, they desire a substantial time. Then there may be Welsh Members who would like to discuss some particularly Welsh aspects. I submit that on what I have said, which is by no means complete or comprehensive, there is a case on the length of the Bill, and a very formidable case.

I remind the House that on Second Reading the Minister of Transport first of all boasted how different a Bill it was from the earlier one, which knocks over the argument of the Leader of the House. He made great play of the point, apprehending trouble on his own side, that the Government would be most conciliatory and most open-minded in considering Amendments in Committee. If the Government pursue that line, surely this is the last thing in the world they should have done, because the effect will be to exclude consideration of a whole lot of Amendments during the Committee stage.

Let me remind the Leader of the House of what he said last Thursday. He did not say anything about the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. His phrase about what happened that week was defined by himself as follows—if I could have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; I know P.P.S.'s have got to do their job, and I am very fond of them, but not just now. This is what happened, which ties the right hon. Gentleman down to precisely what he did mean. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), speaking from below the Gangway, if I remember rightly, said: Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House what he meant by saying that, having regard to what had happened this week, he must take appropriate action? Notice the words "what he meant by saying." The answer given in HANSARD is: Mr. CROOKSHANK: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate on the Transport Bill, when we were promised the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 2054.] That, therefore, is the narrow point upon which he based this Guillotine—merely because we said we would vigorously oppose the Transport Bill. Well, that is commonly done; it is an elementary Parliamentary right, and it is perfectly legitimate to tell the Government so. When the right hon. Gentleman says, "You have said that you will vigorously oppose a Bill. All right, Guillotine." I ask: Is that the precedent? Is this going to happen every time we say we will oppose a Bill with vigour? I say that this indicates the totalitarian spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman approaches the work of this House.

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Gentleman missed out the other point that I was making, about what had been going on.

Mr. Morrison

I have said that the right hon. Gentleman had previously made reference to what had been going on. Let me repeat it My hon. Friend the Member for Easington covered that point. He said: Have I your permission"— at this point the right hon. Gentleman had not said what he meant by "What was going on"— Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House what he meant by saying that, having regard to what had happened this week, he must take appropriate action? The right hon. Gentleman answered: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate on the Transport Bill, when we were promised the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings. Not a word was said about expiring laws.

I say this in no irresponsible spirit. I say, again, that it is the duty of the Leader of the House, always, whether here or in Cabinet, whether in his Whitehall office or on the Floor of the House of Commons—never to lose consciousness of his responsibilities, not merely to the Government but to the whole House of Commons, including the Opposition. This spirit, which he indicates when the Opposition says that it will vigorously fight a Bill, of "Down comes the Guillotine on you" is, I say, a totalitarian spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman sits there and laughs, and that in itself reinforces what I have said, that he is a bad Leader of the House of Commons. Now he is beginning to get cross; that is healthy; he is not so cynical. He says, in effect, "Accept our Bill; anyway, don't fight it with vigour, or we will push it down your throats." That is from the Leader of the House of Commons. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, who has some Parliamentary instincts, agrees with this. I say that such a Leader of the House of Commons ought not to continue in that Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sack him."]

Mr. Crookshank

Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw all that he said in similar circumstances in 1948, when he said that they had to face the case because they were threatened with opposition?

Mr. Morrison

I have amply dealt with the Iron and Steel Bill, and I have met the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I say, once more, that, from his general conduct, and I say it in this case in particular—and I am not saying it with pleasure, because I do not personally dislike the right hon. Gentleman, nor am I animated by personal hate, and I hope I never am—that by his conduct he is raising a big question of whether he should continue in Office as Leader of the House of Commons; whether he ought to be the Parliamentary guardian, under Mr. Speaker, of the liberties of the House and the rights of the Opposition; and I say that this is worthy of his consideration and of that of the Prime Minister.

This Motion is a scandalous Motion; it is an evil thing. This is a scandalous day in the history of our great Parliamentary institutions, and, therefore, we shall give to this Motion all the opposition we can give in the Division Lobby tonight.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Hollis (Devizes)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to put this argument on a somewhat different plane from that on which it has been left by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). No one who is acquainted with the ways of this House could be particularly surprised that the Opposition should oppose such a Motion as that which we are considering at the moment. There have been very few Oppositions in history who would not have opposed such a Motion if it had come from the Government opposite to them. I would also agree with the right hon. Gentleman, so far—and I think that the Leader of the House will agree with him too—that there are in themselves reasons why we are particularly sorry that there should be such a Motion in regard to this particular Bill.

For myself, the reason why I am sorry is a clear one. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made clear the way in which he proposes to conduct the business of this Bill. I think that he won the sympathy of many people by showing himself ready to accept suggestions from whatever quarter they may come. Surely it is perfectly true that the Committee stage of this Bill is likely to be more important than the Committee stage of perhaps some other Bill, where there is a very clear cut division of thought between those who oppose and those who support it. That is so, because, in this Bill, he has invited, and he will receive, not only Amendments from opponents of the Bill but Amendments from supporters of the Bill who are anxious to improve it, and, as we all recognise, it is an unfortunate consequence of the Guillotine procedure that it may well cut out not only Amendments opposed to the Bill but Amendments which are intended to assist the Bill.

To that extent, I quite agree with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I think that my right hon. Friend would agree with them to that extent. But so far as he tried to make some points of party advantage or disadvantage out of this procedure, I think that his arguments were a great deal weaker. He accused my right hon. Friend of being upon the slippery slope which is leading him away from the best Parliamentary practice, but it was to a large extent the right hon. Gentleman himself who in the past laid down the French chalk which had made that slope slippery.

Whatever the subtle distinctions of the circumstances under which this procedure has been employed by one Parliamentary party and another Parliamentary party, I think that we must agree that there is not very much in such arguments, and that by far the most important thing that all this argument has proved amply is that all political parties have employed this procedure fairly frequently when they have been in office. There are only two conclusions to be drawn from that. One cynical conclusion, which it is not my intention to draw in this august Assembly, and which would be almost a violation of privilege to draw, is that all Front Benches are inhabited impartially by rogues; and the other conclusion is that what is at fault is not the individual sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, but the whole system, which is a much more important conclusion for us to consider.

The fact of the matter that we have to face is that these great Bills on industrial reorganisation have to be piloted through this House. Whether they are Bills to nationalise or to de-nationalise or to provide some other method of control, is irrelevant. I do not argue, either to agree or to disagree, with the right hon. Gentleman that Bills which de-nationalise require more consideration than Bills which nationalise; that seems to me to be a secondary point, whether true or false. The important point is that both require consideration if the nation, as the result of that, as "The Times" truly pointed out, is not to suffer.

Under the system that exists at present, what happens is that these Bills, whether of nationalisation or of de-nationalisation, have to go through this House very often with substantial portions of them unconsidered in detail in this House. That is a situation which is profoundly unsatisfactory in itself, which is damaging to the prestige of this House, and which is enormously unfair to industry. Therefore, it seems to me that it is to little purpose now to go into a particular detailed criticism of the Government or of my right hon. Friend, even if I thought that those criticisms were, in detail, a great deal more substantial than in point of fact they are. We are in a particular situation, and any Government would be in this particular situation, as the last Government was, where it frequently has to resort to these undesirable measures.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South said that he hated the Guillotine, but he had no proposals to put forward for doing anything about it. He uses it when in office and opposes it when out of office, like every politician. What we are faced with today is not merely a particular accident of the moment, but a fundamental situation, and in some way the whole method of our industrial legislation must be revised if it is to be made satisfactory. We must find some way in which we ourselves can do this detailed work, or we must find someone else to do it, but to leave it undone is an intolerable injustice to our whole industrial life.

My right hon. Friend said that he was using this particular machinery today merely as an experiment to see whether it would work. Therefore, he is in no dogmatic mood on the question and is not saying that this is the particular way by which we can find a permanent solution to this problem. That being so, I would ask whoever is to reply to this debate to give us a clear answer on this point. Last Thursday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary promised that there would be an inquiry by the House into the whole question of the control of delegated legislation.

This sort of legislation is quite clearly in as unsatisfactory condition, as is delegated legislation itself, and neither of the programmes at present announced by either of the political parties makes any contribution as such to the solution of this problem, which is more serious in some ways than the question of whether we are to nationalise or to de-nationalise this particular industry. I hope that whoever is going to reply to this debate will give us a promise that if we agree to this Motion either the inquiry into delegated legislation will be extended to cover this sort of legislation, or that some other parallel investigation into the matter will be made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

If the right hon. Gentleman replies he will be out of order, because it has nothing to do with the Allocation of Time Order.

Mr. Hollis

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will do so at some other time.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

It is obvious from the speeches made this afternoon that this Motion ought to be opposed because it deprives us of very necessary opportunities to discuss Amendments and principles involved in the Bill which, in turn, affect the livelihood of at least a million people. For instance, prior to the Transport Act, 1947, there were no fewer than 14,000 members of the road haulage staff for whom no adequate provision was made in respect of rates of wages, salaries, office accommodation, and so on.

Up to that time only 3,000 out of 17,000 people had anything like satisfactory provision made for them, and if this Motion is agreed to this afternoon we shall have no opportunity of discussing in detail the well-being of that very large number of road transport staff. Indeed, the problem is even greater than that because everybody agrees that the Bill affects not only the men and women of the road haulage staff, but that it will also have a tremendous effect upon the well-being of those employed in the railway industry.

No fewer than 90,000 people are very concerned as to what is going to happen to them in cases of redundancy, what provision will be made for them in respect of pensions and what protection will be afforded them in respect of staff economies. As the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition pointed out a little earlier this afternoon, these people have the right to have their case considered by this House when we are considering a Measure which, in many respects, may deprive them of their ordinary livelihood.

These questions of redundancy, compensation and pensions referred to in Clauses 14 and 15, etc., of the Bill are of vital importance, and I beg the House to hesitate before it deprives us of an opportunity to secure from the right hon. Gentleman opposite what he proposes to do regarding these very vital matters. He was good enough to say that he will consider the representations being made, but he has so much power under the Bill itself that we fear, unless some provision is made by way of Amendment and by the addition of new Clauses to the Bill, that it will be too late at a later stage to protect these people.

A reference has been made to what have been called "area boards." These boards, presumably, are to take the place of the Railway Executive, but will be subject to some co-ordinating authority. In our view that is—

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

On a point of order. Shall we be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in discussing the merits of the Bill if we have the good fortune to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that the merits of the Bill were being discussed by the hon. Gentleman. I think he was giving reasons why more time should be given for the Committee stage of the Bill, which is quite in order.

Mr. Morris

I was referring to the problems arising from the Bill which, I was saying, we ought to have ample time in Committee to discuss in detail, but that the passing of this Motion would deprive us of that opportunity. These area boards may constitute a very great difficulty indeed in respect of railway administration, and we were hoping that given adequate time we could have submitted alternative proposals and in that way arrive at some measure of agreement upon this very controversial Bill.

Reference has also been made to the Disposals Board. We are very puzzled as to whether the Clause dealing with that particular suggestion will afford sufficient protection to the public. It seems to us that, as framed at the moment, it will be possible for, say, half a dozen friends to buy 25, 30 or 50 separate units, and, after operating them for some time, to come to a working agreement, and in that way to develop a new monopoly.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement on Second Reading, denied that that was the case, but we want him to make the position very much clearer. We want him to clarify the point by way of Amendment, but this Motion, once more, deprives us of the liberty we are seeking. The fact of the matter is that this Motion will prevent Her Majesty's Opposition from assisting the Government in making order out of chaos so far as this Bill is concerned.

We tried to get some clarification of the White Paper. Then we got the first Bill, then the second Bill, and on Second Reading we were promised further clarification in respect of a third Bill, and we are wondering, if we can convince the right hon. Gentleman of the justice of some of our claims, whether it will involve a fourth or fifth Bill. If he wants to avoid that position developing, then we ought to be given far more time than is suggested by this Motion in which to consider the matter in the greatest possible detail.

A million people are employed in transport, and if we visualise each of them having three or four dependants it means, ultimately, that at least 9 per cent. of the population of this country have a direct stake in transport. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is no mean figure, and that he will at some time or other—preferably by way of Amendment to the Bill, which is more satisfactory, both from the private and public point of view—have to cater for the needs of these people and will have to satisfy us that this legislation is not going to deprive the members of the various transport organisations, the employees of the Road Haulage Board and of the Railway Executive of conditions of service that have been won after many years of very serious effort. I beg the Government to hesitate before forcing this Measure through the House.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Hon. Members will agree that the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) are of particular importance, and it is right that they should be fully and properly discussed. I am quite certain that, with co-operation on all sides, seven whole days in Committee should be ample time for their examination in the sort of detail which they deserve.

I felt that the discussion this afternoon was whether or not we should have this Guillotine Motion and whether my right hon. Friend was right in asking for the approval of this Motion, or whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was right in arguing that we ought not to have a Guillotine on this particular subject. If what the right hon. Gentleman said is a foretaste of the sort of opposition we are to have during the rest of this debate, I can only say that it is a badly acted charade.

I felt from the beginning of his speech that the whole of his opposition was nothing more than play acting. It is true that towards the end he did try to introduce a certain amount of high drama, but I felt that he failed dismally. It was not his fault that he failed, because he was on shifting sand, only held up by props. Before he spoke my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had knocked all the props from underneath his argument.

It was awfully difficult for him to oppose this Guillotine Motion when my right hon. Friend was able to put on record that the right hon. Gentleman had done precisely the same thing on a previous occasion. It was also difficult for him to substantiate his argument that this Guillotine ought not to be carried when on three occasions in the life-time of his party as the Government of the day they had introduced similar Motions.

I thought it was very interesting the way the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South fell back upon the leading article in "The Times" this morning, and since he made such a lot of use of that I thought it would not be unhelpful if we were to refer to the leading article in "The Times" of 21st April of this year when a previous Guillotine Motion was being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought to take a lot of notice of "The Times." He thought their evidence was worth a lot of consideration and he submitted a particular portion of it. I should like to remind the House of what "The Times" leader said on 21st April. These are the words: The third fallacy—and not the least important—is the contention that the Government's right to govern depends on the size of their majority. It is the duty of the Government to govern whatever the size of their majority. It is for them to decide what Measures are necessary to the efficient administration of the country. That, I submit, completely supports the attitude of my right hon. Friend, who has decided that it is his duty to see that this important Measure, which is designed for the good of transport in particular and of the country in general is not "nobbled" by being talked to death by the "midnight hags" as has been the case in so many matters during the last few months.

It is true that the right hon. Gentleman for Lewisham, South said that on the Iron and Steel Bill the then Government offered to negotiate with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then leading the Opposition. But the difficulty today, even if that had been thought of by Her Majesty's Government, is with whom to negotiate. With whom should we negotiate, to be quite certain that the negotiations and the agreements arising from them will be honoured? My right hon. Friend quoted speeches by the Leader of the Opposition at a meeting in the Albert Hall and by other right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches showing that they all prophesied all sorts of opposition to this Bill.

But there is the other opposition in this House, and I should like to quote from some of their speeches to show that their opposition would be just as difficult to overcome. First, I should like to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who in this House on 9th April said: But we warn the Government if they do not do it, if they insist upon forcing this legislation through the House, we cannot guarantee them any facilities whatsoever, either on the Finance Bill or the Supplies and Services Bill, despite whatever constitutional embarrassments may follow. That is the sort of threat that no self-respecting Government could have allowed to pass without anticipating in such a way as this Guillotine Motion does. On the same day the right hon. Gentleman went on to say: I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought to reconsider the whole of their legislative programme. They ought to abandon certain Bills uncongenial to the Opposition. I know that it is difficult for the Government, but actually the Opposition are in charge of the situation and not the Government. Indeed, the Opposition would be in charge of the position if Her Majesty's Government were so weak as to allow them to dictate just what time should be taken and when we know that they are deliberately wasting time as they have done during the last few months.

Mr. Arthur Moyle (Oldbury and Halesowen)

Was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) arguing from the premise that while, of course, there was no disputing the Government had a majority in the House, they did not have a majority vote in the country at the time, and therefore he was pleading with the Government to have a legislative programme that would involve less controversial matters?

Mr. Nicholls

The point I am making is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South said that the last Government offered to negotiate with the then Opposition on the Iron and Steel Bill. I am showing that it is almost impossible now for the usual channels to negotiate any such agreement as that because of the divided nature of the Opposition, and I am saying that we have had so many examples of that that it would be quite stupid to let it pass unnoticed.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East) rose—

Mr. Nicholls

I cannot give way because there are so many other hon. Members who want to speak.

I should like to quote finally from that same speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale: If Parliament is so much out of tune with what the country wants, if the Government of the day force through legislation so demonstrably against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, how is it possible for us continually to advise the industrial masses that they ought not to use industrial action in order to prevent legislation they do not like?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2787.] This faction threatened to hold us up in the House in getting through the ordinary legislation of the Finance Bill and the Supplies and Services Bill, and then they followed it up by saying that if they did not get just what they liked they were prepared to threaten industrial action.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South again repeated the charge that we were not representative of a majority of the people in the country. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite will cast their eye for a moment on my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who only recently got back here with an increased majority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I wonder if they remember that during the week preceding that by-election this particular Measure was forecast in great detail. I wonder if they remember that upon the actual day of that by-election the Queen's Speech was published giving the details of this new Measure about transport. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is the hon. Member forgetting Dundee, East?"] I am arguing that it would have been impossible to have negotiated with any responsible section opposite as to the extent of the time to be taken on this Bill.

I should like to quote again from among the people who have to be taken into account in these days when thinking of saving Parliamentary time. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), writing in "Reynolds News" on 28th October stated: Moreover, their majority is not large; Tory M.P.s grow more restive than Labour M.P.s if kept by the Whips at Westminster night after night, away from their outside social engagements; we shall harry and harass them …

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

What has this got to do with the Allocation of Time Order?

Mr. Nicholls

I am justifying my suggestion that it would be impossible to negotiate an arrangement with the Opposition such as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South. I am arguing that as well as the official Opposition we have to contend with other factions in the House if we want to get our legislation through. I should like to quote a letter—

Mr. T. Driberg (Maldon)

Just at the moment when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, interrupted the hon. Gentleman, I hoped that he was about to finish the sentence that he was quoting from an article written by me. He would be unfair if he did not do so.

Mr. Nicholls

The final words were: What was it Bob Boothby said? What a speaker may say on a public platform as an aside to a speech is very different from an article written in cold blood. Knowing it will be read and quoted, he must have meant it to take that risk. I would remind the House of a letter sent to "The Times" by four hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first signature is that of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). They said: The purpose of this Opposition has been to employ Government time upon administrative legislation and to deny to the Government time to introduce contentious legislation for which they have no mandate. That is a clear threat—and the Opposition have carried it out to a large extent already—that they intend to use Parliamentary time on every occasion to prevent the Government from getting on with the essential job of governing the country and getting the necessary legislation through for that purpose.

The actual merit or demerit of the Bill is not what the Opposition are really expressing today; this is another endeavour to prevent Her Majesty's Government from administering the country efficiently by using up the Parliamentary time which should rightly be theirs. I am arguing that the threat has been made, and that effect has been given to it in a very practical form, and that the Opposition are using up Parliamentary time on all manner of questions which would normally go through without debate, in order to prevent Her Majesty's Government from making the vital alterations to the law of this land upon which economic success is very definitely dependent.

There is no real respect for Parliament by the party opposite; always the party must come first. I would quote in support of that statement something written by the previous Minister of Food on 16th December, 1951: We have had power. We are no longer a frustrated minority seeking power. I know that the Tories for the moment are in office but we are still in power. We are the ruling class and should act like it. That is the mentality which is behind the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite the whole of the time, when they take up the time which should be given to the Government for administration.

As I said at the beginning of my, speech, this is a badly-acted charade, but I think we can see through it. On this side of the House we recognise the need to have the wasteful, supposed-nationalised transport system altered in such a way that we can release individual enterprise and inventiveness which alone will bring efficiency to industry and trade. We believe that the Bill will accomplish that purpose.

The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said that their own nationalisation Bill was not so important as the Bill we are referring to today, because it did not take us further away from what had gone before, but his right hon. Friend had for many months hailed what had been done in the nationalising of road transport as "a bloodless revolution." We want to put a little more red blood into the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Red meat."] One of the certain ways of bringing that red meat is to get efficiency into industry, which will enable it to earn the money to pay for the meat. It is because we believe that what we are doing will result in better living standards and more red meat, that we intend to pursue it.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham)

I must confess that I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), although he got his metaphors a little mixed. He talked of shifting sands on one occasion on another that the props had been driven from underneath, and he tried hard to drag in some nonsense about there being two Oppositions. But what we are concerned with is whether enough time is being given for discussing adequately in Committee the details of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) described recent nationalisation Bills, and the present Bill, as great Measures of industrial re-organisation. There is some truth in that statement, but unless the House has sufficient time in which to discuss such Measures in detail we shall not get them representing truthfully and fully the opinions of this House. The Minister of Transport said last week that he was prepared to consider suggestions for amendment, and he plainly pointed out that this was the third go they had had at it. There has been a White Paper and a Bill, and now there is a second Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was willing to consider suggestions for improving the Bill, but they can only be made on the Committee stage. The Government want to consider suggestions from their own side—they will probably get a great many from us—but do not want to give sufficient time for considering any suggestions which may be made.

I was a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the transport nationalisation Bill and I remember the enormous number of Amendments which the then Opposition put down, as well as the very large number which came from the Government side. I remember a discussion lasting three-quarters of an hour on the difference of meaning between "a" and "the." The Government need not expect that kind of nonsense this time, but we need much more time to discuss in detail how the Bill will affect the people who are employed in the transport industry.

On the Second Reading very little was said about the particular section of the industry that I am concerned with and which my own union largely represents, because nobody concerned with road transport was lucky enough to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. The changes proposed on the road haulage side will affect the lives of many thousands of people who want to be satisfied that their interests are fully protected when the Bill finally leaves the House.

Unless sufficient time is allowed to discuss these matters, we shall only add still more to the fierce and bitter spirit which is already growing up in the road transport industry as the result of the introduction of the Bill. I do not want to discuss the Bill, and I should be out of order if I did so, but it is nevertheless true that the wages, hours and conditions of the men, and the condition of the lorries which they drive, have been built up as the result partly of many years of bitter struggle in the industrial field and partly of improvements carried through by the Road Haulage Executive.

The men are proud of the job they are doing. I do not suggest that they have not grumbles; of course they have. In spite of one statement made on the Second Reading that there are tens of thousands of lorry drivers in favour of the Bill, all the organised trade unionists in the industry are against it and are doing their utmost to oppose it outside this House. I do not mean by that indulging in strikes, although I can visualise that which might drive the men to that if we got back to the conditions of the inter-war years in the road transport industry. What we are concerned about is whether sufficient time is being allowed for an adequate discussion, not merely of the Clauses dealing with the abolition of the Road Haulage Executive, but of the compensation Clauses.

I remember vividly how, when we were discussing the first Road Transport Bill, the compensation Clauses had the least discussion of all because of the time that was taken up in discussing other matters. These are the things which, if the Bill is to go through, the men will want some guarantee about or they will be entitled to grumble. Unless we have much more than seven days in which to discuss these matters in detail in Committee, an even greater feeling of frustration will grow in the minds and hearts of the men engaged in road transport—

Mr. H. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman say what will be discussed in those seven days?

Mr. Gibson

I imagine that long before we reach the Clauses dealing with compensation, there will be untold discussion on many other points. Hon. Members opposite will put down Amendments which will keep us off the question of compensation. The hon. Gentleman, who did a fair amount of buccaneering earlier, knows the answer to that question. Then we want to know in detail how the levy will work. I want to know how it will affect lorries owned by local authorities and why they should pay it at all. Amendments will be moved in connection with this matter, and, unless we get double the time allowed by the Government, we shall not have a reasonable change to discuss them.

In London we want to know what will be the effect of changes in the freight charges and fares, and what guarantees there will be, if this Bill goes through, that London will not be still further penalised by comparison with the rest of the country in regard to passenger fares. There will be no chance of discussing these things unless there is full and adequate time allowed, and the results will be greater and greater frustration and bitterness.

We want the Government so to arrange the time for discussion in the Committee stage of this Bill as to prevent the men and women employed in the transport industry, road as well as rail, from feeling that in this sell-out of Government property which the Bill entails they will not be dragged down into the gutter, as happened so often in the past when industrial difficulties arose. We want to be sure that the workers in the industry are properly protected, as they were under the Electricity Act, by Amendments being made to the Bill. I should like the principles of any compensation scheme to be in the Bill. I do not like leaving it to any Minister to frame regulations, but I like it even less in the case of the present Minister, because we cannot forget his past history.

I say, therefore, that this Motion allocating time for the discussion of the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading of the Bill, is utterly inadequate. The best thing the Government can do is to take it away, think again, and come back with a new proposal which will at least double the time allowed.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves (Carlisle)

I want to urge the reasons why the House ought not to accept this Allocation of Time Motion. My hon. Friends have referred to the anxieties of the staffs employed in transport. There is perhaps an issue greater than that, and one which I believe the Minister has disregarded almost completely. The traders and the general public have been in great anxiety and doubt about the position of transport since the proposals of the Government first saw the light of day. We can only take into account the views of the trading public, of the transport-using public and of the workers in the great industries of this country using transport if the House devotes a great deal more time to the discussion of this important matter.

I have referred to the anxieties of the trading public. Those anxieties were due, in the first place, to the nebulous nature of the proposals put forward by the Government. Those anxieties have not been relieved by the changes that have taken place, changes which are not due to any real thought of the consequences flowing from the operation of such a Measure.

To return to the question of the staffs, it would be absurd to expect that, in the short time to be devoted to the Committee stage, every one of the problems affecting them can be considered. Yet there is need to incorporate in this Bill sufficient protection to relieve their anxiety. The Bill gives no real intimation of the Government's proposals in that regard, except that the Minister has certain powers by regulation to apply protective conditions to the people engaged in the industry.

The staff of the Railway Executive, however, will want to know how this affects them. The Bill contains no provisions affecting the staff of the Railway Executive, and the result is that the staff must worry about the outcome of the Bill. If we take all staff matters into account, then I can say, from my own knowledge of the transport industry, that it will be necessary to move anything from 50 to 100 Amendments to the various Clauses—and that is dealing with one side of the industry only. If the Government feel that my approach to the question amounts to delaying tactics, I would point out that the Bill, in its present form, gives no protection at all to the staff but gives power to the Minister to take action by regulations.

In a comparable industry—the railway industry—negotiating machinery has been in operation ever since the Act of 1921. I am sure that if we had the time it would be desirable to fit some kind of negotiating machinery into the Bill—machinery which would be attractive to those engaged in the entire transport industry and which would seek to safeguard those who are being hived off from the industry by these proposals.

I have spoken of two very important matters which affect large sections of the staff, but there are many others, such, for instance, as the question of the superannuation fund, which is not covered by the Bill. Superannuation in transport is at the moment in the melting pot. The British Transport Commission have the semblance of a fund, although there is as yet no statutory B.T.C. fund, and members of the staff have suffered deductions from their salary week by week in order to make provision for such a fund. This Bill contains nothing which will be helpful to them in assessing their future position.

Indeed, the Bill takes no cognisance of many matters which affect the staff, and I suggest seriously to the Minister that, in order to make room for full and proper discussion of these matters, he should remove from the Bill the question of the reorganisation of the railways. This would leave room for Clauses providing protective provisions for the staff, the establishment of a superannuation fund and the establishment of negotiating and consultative machinery, to which the Bill at present pays no attention.

I am sure that, quite apart from hon. Members on this side of the House who are interested in transport, some hon. Members opposite will want a full and proper discussion along the lines I have indicated. Indeed, the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) called attention to the provisions of the Bill dealing with railway re-organisation.

There is a good deal of dissatisfaction in all quarters of the House because it is recognised that the proposals in the Bill are hasty and ill-considered. The 1947 Act would admit of this kind of railway re-organisation being carried out without the need for this Bill, and that is a possible line upon which the Minister might be prepared to meet the wishes of the House. He could then remove from the Bill those Clauses dealing with railway re-organisation and give additional time for the consideration of the staff matters to which I have called attention. Such railway re-organisation could be done under the 1947 Act.

In my opinion, the public, transport users and traders, will want to see the future functions of the British Transport Commission defined much more closely than they are in the Bill. Certainly the Bill is hazy about the functions of the British Transport Commission under the Minister's direction and over-riding powers. Press comment, and technical Press comment, has shown that no one is very clear about the Government's intentions.

It appears that the function of policy control and direction is to continue with the British Transport Commission but to a lesser degree than in the past, and yet they are also to take upon themselves managerial functions. This is another matter which might usefully be discussed at much greater length by the House. If these immense changes in transport organisation are to take place, it is essential to take the general public and the trading public, as well as the staff, into consultation all along the line.

It is generally recognised that it is the task of this House to make up its mind about the functions which have been carried on in the past by the directive body—the British Transport Commission and the various Executives. The public recognise that the Railway Executive, for instance, have done a job which could not have been done by the separate railway managements of past years. It should be possible for us to put down Amendments to deal with the question of the Railway Executive, proposing to leave with them the functions which they have performed so excellently since they were given the powers under the 1947 Act.

I should like to see those powers continued in a body of a similar character; if not the Executive, it should be a body of precisely the same sort, having an overall control enabling it to introduce into all the sections of the industry which it is managing the enormous economies which the Railway Executive have been able to make. I want that kind of thing continued under the Bill, and it can be done only if we have sufficient time to bring to the notice of the Government, and those hon. Members in all parts of the House who are interested, the ideas which have been thrown up even in the limited discussion which has so far taken place.

On the Second Reading the Minister indicated his ideas on what he called decentralisation. I should prefer that that proposal might be taken out of the Bill in order to leave more time for discussion of other matters; but, if the Minister is not prepared to do that, I suggest that we ought to have time for framing for his consideration Amendments which would be wide, in scope in order to give effect to regions which would not be merely railway regions, but transport regions. I suggest that we could frame Amendments which would carry out the purpose of de-centralisation and at the same time recognise a centre which the Minister regards as a railway centre not merely as such but as a centre of transport. I think that time ought to be given to consider the possibility of regarding certain areas where the industry and population are concentrated as natural transport areas.

The Minister might consider the possibility of looking at Amendments on those lines and giving time for consideration of Scotland as one area—regarding it from the point of view of transport, not of nationalism—and there are other natural transport areas around Newcastle, Leeds. Manchester and Merseyside. They are natural transport areas and we should take advantage of all forms of transport in those areas. If the Minister and the Government would give time to consider these matters, we could all pool our knowledge and experience on these problems.

The main point to which I want to direct my remarks is the need for this House to devote very much more time to the Committee stage of this Measure than the seven days provided in the Allocation of Time Motion. I do not think it will be denied that a great deal of uncertainty and doubt, and, indeed, needless opposition in some quarters, has been stimulated by reason of the fact that we have not yet had in this House a real proposal from the Government which the country could seize and understand. Their ideas and approaches to the matter have been vacillating from month to month. If that is denied anywhere, may I remind hon. Members opposite of their proposals?

I have heard in this House many times that they would establish regions each competing one with another. I heard that from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in the Second Reading debate and on innumerable occasions from Government spokesmen in the past two or three years. It is natural that the trading public and transport users do not understand the approach of the Government to these matters. They cannot possibly do so unless sufficient time is given for this House to give real consideration to all the matters affecting this immense problem.

I want to remind the Government that there is a desperate need to mitigate as far as possible the real anxieties of the people within the industry and to avoid friction and trouble. There is negotiating machinery and consultative machinery in existence, but that will not exist in parts of the industry if this Bill goes through in its present form. It is essential that this House should take the staff and the public with them in consideration of matters of this kind. That cannot be done unless the utmost time is afforded for all quarters of the House to bring their experience, knowledge and ability to bear on the Measure.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. George Deer (Newark)

I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I listened to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), who I am sorry is not now in his place. He suggested that our opposition to the Timetable Motion is a badly-acted charade and that we are merely play-acting. If that is the opinion of many back benchers on the Government side—I have noticed that he received nods of approval from the Government Front Bench during his speech—I suggest that the Government do not understand the feeling in the country and in the industry regarding this Bill.

I feel somewhat more closely and intimately than my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that the lives and future of thousands of men—their wages conditions and future—are being thrown into the melting pot. It is no reflection on the Chair, but in the Second Reading debate no hon. Member representing the biggest union concerned with the industry had the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Nevetheless, the idea gets around that the Government can steam-roller through the House a Time-table Motion of this kind, paying little regard to the feelings of people engaged in the industry. That will not have the effect, which the hon. Member for Peterborough claimed for the Bill, of making our industrial success much easier, quicker and better.

My reason for urging that more time should be given to the Bill is the fact that the men engaged in the industry have some very bitter memories of what occurred in the early days. If I may be allowed a personal note, I spent weeks running around traffic commissioners' courts objecting to licences for private owners who were not playing the game either in respect of their workers or of their competitors and not taking any action to see that the fair wages clause and the fair conditions clause were operated. I was a member of a vigilance committee composed of good employers and trade unionists, and this was the committee's job. If we are to have the sellout which the Bill envisages, with little or no discussion as to what is to be done about this matter, we shall have a repetition of those wearisome days. We ought to think twice before we do that.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that not only is there a feeling of uncertainty among employers and employed in the road haulage industry, but in every other section of nationalised industry. People in my constituency are saying, "Road transport now, steel next; what is to follow? How do you expect to build an industrial machine to cope with present difficulties if we have that sort of uncertainty in the minds of people engaged in our basic industries?"

I put it to the House that this Measure—I cannot discuss the merits of it—deserves more time than we are being given to consider it. I am inundated by letters not only from the haulage interests but also from inland waterways interests, in connection with which I played some little part before I came to this House. Whatever the Government may say, these people are apprehensive about what the position is to be, and if we consider the Amendments that would be required from the traders' side, which would require second thoughts on the part of the Government, and constructive Amendments which will come from those Members on this side of the House who have an interest in transport, it means that the days allocated to the Committee stage are utterly unreal, and the Government should think again about the matter.

I urge the Government, even at this late hour, not to be influenced by swashbuckling statements about "we are going to do this or that regardless of the circumstances and the facts which face us," but to proceed in a statesmanlike way and to bear in mind that the lifeblood of a nation depends upon transport. Manufacturing is useless if there is not adequate and reasonable transport, and if the Government are to disturb transport and the people engaged in it, they are heading for a much bigger disaster than they think. For that reason I urge the Government to have second thoughts about this Motion.

6.32 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) about the importance of the transport industry and those who work in it, but that is not quite what we are discussing this afternoon. I begin with a point which is directly related to this Allocation of Time Order, by saying to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it is a great improvement that we are continuing until 10.30 p.m. in the evening on Allotted Days, instead of following the system whereby time was added after 10 p.m. for the time spent after 3.30 p.m. on other matters.

It is quite fair that when a Time-table is in force, the Opposition should not be deprived of debating time by the fact that there has been some Ministerial statement, but I cannot help feeling that the system we operated on previous occasions was not completely satisfactory. It was sometimes a little hard to remember exactly when the Guillotine would fall.

After listening to every speech made from the back benches opposite, it seems to me that some hon. Members have really been rather too pessimistic about the chances of major Opposition points being considered during the Committee stage of the Bill. I think the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) went so far, in the latter part of his speech, as to speak of the Government making detailed arrangements for the proceedings on the Committee stage. Surely the whole point of Standing Order No. 41, which is being brought into play for the purpose of this Allocation Of Time Order, is that the Opposition should have a reasonable opportunity of deciding which Clauses and which parts of the Bill they regard as most important.

The whole point of the Standing Order is that there shall be a Business Committee so that discussion in the Committee and Report stages can be planned, and that there shall be a reasonable chance of Amendments and parts of the Bill to which the Opposition attach most importance receiving fair consideration.

Mr. Gibson

That is quite true it enough time is given by the Motion adequately to discuss them. My point is that that cannot be done in the time it is proposed to allocate.

Sir E. Boyle

I am going on to say a few words about the time allocated. It seemed to me that in his speech the hon. Member did not quite give due weight to the fact that Standing Order No. 41 was designed to meet the point which he had in mind.

I wish now to come to the question of the total amount of time which is being allocated to these stages of the Bill. We in this House sometimes forget the difficulties with which any Government are faced in planning their programme by reason of the fact that the total amount of regular annual Parliamentary business is today so great that the number of days which any Government have for legislation is rather smaller than they would like. I think I am right in saying that last year—I am speaking from memory—there were, from the beginning of the Session until we broke up for the Summer Recess, only some 39 days available for Government legislation, leaving out of account the Finance Bill and the proceedings on the Civil List.

If we devoted to this Bill as much as 19 days, which is what the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is suggesting in the Amendment which he is shortly to move, that would be about half the total number of days which the Government have at their disposal for legislation in the course of an ordinary year.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Why did the Government make such a slow start with their business after Christmas? Why did they send us away for seven weeks or so? Why was there all that time lost?

Sir E. Boyle

We took office at the end of Ocober last year. It is extremely difficult for a Government to have major legislation prepared soon enough to discuss it soon after Christmas. Indeed, if the Government are to pass any considerable volume of major legislation, the Second Reading of at least one major Bill has to be obtained before Christmas. Our taking office at the end of October made it very difficult indeed for us to get any major legislation carried during our first year of office.

My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct when he says that Bills of this importance should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I think that in the circumstances the time being proposed for this Bill is not unreasonable. I believe that there will be opportunity to discuss all the major points which Members on both sides of the House rightly wish to raise in the Committee stage. Nor should we forget that this Bill will be discussed in another place and we shall probably also have some discussion on any Amendments received from another place, which will add further to the time available for the discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

The hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will recollect that a White Paper relating to this problem was issued in May, and that a Bill was issued in July. It seems a little simple for someone to come to the House in November and argue that there is a limited time in which to get this Bill through when the Government have taken at least since May to make up their mind about what form the legislation was to take.

The Leader of the House, in opening the debate today, said that this problem had been before the country for eight months. But this is not the Bill that we saw in July nor is it a document in the same as the White Paper which we saw in May. So, if it has taken the Government all this time to make up their mind how do they expect the Opposition, in seven days in this House—or 49 hours—to put forward all the points they wish to advance on this Bill?

Indeed, the Minister of Transport himself, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted that it was not the same Bill. He said: For this is a very different Bill …. I am not in the least ashamed of the fact that we have profited a good deal by discussion and friendly argument …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1405.] How, then, can the Leader of the House argue that this Measure has been before the House and the country for eight months, when the Minister himself admitted last week that this is a new Bill, with new features?

The Leader of the House went on to say that what was proposed in the Motion ought to be sufficient time. The problems of transport have been before this country, so far as railways are concerned, since 1844. Indeed, the very problem which is now to occupy the attention of the House has been before successive Governments since at least early in 1928, for a predecessor of this Tory Government, or at least a Tory-dominated Government, in 1928 appointed a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission and successive legislation passed by Tory Governments dealt with this problm on the principle of co-ordination. But for some reason best known to the Government they have now totally abandoned co-ordination in any shape or form. I suggest that that fundamental change is a problem which should occupy the attention of this House for considerably more time than is allowed for it.

The Leader of the House tells us that this Bill is not as big as the Transport Bill of 1946 which became the Transport Act of 1947. He went on to make some comparisons. My right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition answered that criticism fairly well, but let me put this to the Leader of the House. If this Bill had gone upstairs for discussion, with the machinery available to the House most of the hon. Members interested in it would have been appointed to the appropriate Committee, and there would have been approximately 70 hon. Members to discuss this Measure. The Leader of the House said it is important that a Bill of this kind should be debated on the Floor of the House.

What does that mean? He told us that as a result of juggling with the machinery, he will give us 49 hours. If my mathematics are correct that means 2,940 minutes. If we exclude hon. Members who are members of the Government, and their entourage, it means that there will be, roughly 500 hon. Members entitled to make speeches in Committee on this Bill. And if my mathematics are still correct, that means that each one of them, including the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, will be able to make one speech of five and three-quarter minutes' duration—

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

A very good idea.

Mr. Jones

It may be a good idea for the hon. Member, who has no particular interest in this matter, and is not concerned with the thousands of people whose livelihood is imperilled by the Bill. That is the kind of remark one would expect from an hon. Gentleman who does not understand the economics of this problem.

Mr. Doughty

What possible justification has the hon. Member for making that completely untrue statement? I represent a constituency in which there are a great many transport interests.

Mr. Jones

My justification for making that statement is the fact of the interjection which the hon. Member made when I suggested that if this Motion is carried, every one of the 500 hon. Members entitled to take part in the Committee proceedings on this Bill will be able to make one speech each of five and three-quarter minutes' duration.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

Would the hon. Member tell us if he has ever known of a debate in which 500 hon. Members, or 250, or even 100 have spoken?

Mr. Jones

I do not think that question arises. The point I am putting—[Interruption]—all right, let us adopt the suggestion that 100 hon. Members want to take part in this debate—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been to Mr. Speaker's Chair on very many occasions and seen lists of more than 200 hon. Members who wish to speak in a debate?

Mr. Jones

If 500 hon. Members do not want to take part, and if we reduce that figure to one fifth, I suggest that merely means that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will have 25 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-six and a quarter."] All right, they will have 30 minutes to answer all the points put to them, or else they will be taking up more than their share of the allotted time. I am quite sure that neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary, capable as they are, will be able to answer all the points put from this side of the House in that short time.

This may not be a very lengthy Bill, but it alters the transport industry fundamentally. It deals with almost all the phases of the industry. It is divided into eight separate sections, and on the basis of the time allocated we shall not have one whole day to debate each of these sections. They are all important. The first section, the first nine Clauses, interfere with the livelihood of between 75,000 and 80,000 people engaged in the industry, and there is not one word in the Bill about what is to happen to the jobs which these people are now doing. Is a day, six-and-a-half to seven hours of Parliamentary time, sufficient adequately to discuss the consequences to some 75,000 or 80,000 people?

In an earlier debate on the transport industry we were told that what is desired is that small units shall return; that husband and sons shall drive the lorries and the wife do the books by candlelight in the kitchen [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. If that time comes again, then thousands of the people who are employed in this industry, driving lorries, will be out of a job. The Government contemptuously suggests that a few hours is sufficient to decide their fate. If the industry is to be broken up into what the Minister likes to call operable units—I do not know how many hundreds of them there will be—what is to happen to the central maintenance depots and all the people they employ? Are they to be taken over by separate companies, or are these people to be put on the streets without any offer of alternative employment?

The second section of this Bill deals with the levy. Thousands of C licence holders, who, before July of this year were presumed to be the special concern of right hon. and hon Members opposite, are now to be called on to make a contribution of 13s. 6d. per quarter of a ton on each of their lorries, provided they are over one ton unladen weight—and less than a day is to be given to discuss this problem. I hope that C licence holders in the country will note the contempt in which they are held when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite get into the Government, as compared with the attitude they adopted when they were in Opposition.

The third section of the Bill deals with railway re-organisation. There some 650,000 railwaymen are to have their organisation dismantled. So far as I can see nobody yet has any knowledge of how it is to be re-organised. What about the staff employed by the Railway Executive? What about the national machinery? All these things are important to nearly three-quarters of a million railwaymen. Yet, in the words of the Leader of the House less than a day will be sufficient to discuss all the points of view which will be put on this problem.

The fourth section of the Bill places in the hands of the Minister of Transport virtual dictatorial power so far as it concerns the road passenger industry; and we are to have less than a day to debate it. In that section the Minister takes power, to quote an example, to direct the Transport Commission to divest itself of so much of its holdings in all its road passenger undertakings as to make it a minority shareholder. But there is not a single word in the Bill about the British Electric Traction Company's monopoly; not a single word about the monopoly of this privately-owned company who, at present, control more than 12,000 buses.

I wonder what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who is now known in South Wales as "Dai Bach o Llundain," will be told by his friends when he goes to South Wales. He will probably be told that the Ministry of Transport are given power under this Bill, to create a single privately-owned monopoly in every single bus operating in South Wales from the Severn to the Brecon Beacon and Cardigan Bay. How will he be able to answer to his friends in South Wales after having closed a debate tonight and voted on a Motion of this kind which virtually gives his right hon. Friend, complete domination, under private ownership, of the whole of the bus services in South Wales? I suggest that the welcome that he will get on his thirty-third visit to the Principality will not be anything like as good as that which he got on the thirty-second visit.

I make a final appeal to the Government. There is behind this business a much more important principle. There is a great deal of discontent in this industry, both on the railway, the road passenger and the road haulage sides, at the action which the Government propose to take to dismantle the organisation which has been set up. There have been threats of industrial action. I hope that those threats will not be put into effect; but what answer will the Government give if the people take industrial action when they themselves are taking these unprecedented steps to get this Bill through Parliament?

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

One fact I am certain of and that is that a great deal of steam has been let off from other places than railway engines while the Transport Bill has been under consideration, very largely by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been trying to work up an entirely false opposition to this Measure which is not felt throughout the country. I am certain that the feeling among most people is, "For goodness' sake get on with the Bill; get the industry de-nationalised and back into proper hands."

Only three people have written to me in any way criticising this Bill as individuals, and even then there is a certain hackneyed similarity about their letters. The workers do not like the conditions under which they have worked in this enormous monopoly. They are only too anxious to get back to the days when they can have a boss near to them, so that if they do not like him—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the merits of the Bill. We are discussing the Time-table Motion.

Mr. Doughty

I was following up what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said.

I am sure that the Time-table allows sufficient time for consideration of this Bill. The Transport Act, 1947, which was considered in Committee for 76 hours, has 128 Sections and 15 Schedules. The definition Section alone occupies four pages. If that Measure could be considered in 76 hours, then the provisions of this much smaller Bill which has only 35 Clauses and two Schedules can be dealt with fully in seven days. That will allow ample time if hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember that a good point once made does not require constant repetition.

If hon. Gentlemen can make good points in 5¾ minutes, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools calculated, that will be sufficient. It is not by constant repetition or by asking one's friends to repeat the argument that one makes any impression.

Before it was found necessary to introduce this Motion, there was a certain slowing down in the business of this House which, if it had been continued during our consideration of the Transport Bill, would have caused a good deal of criticism. The Government were entirely right, warned as they were by that slowing down, to take effective steps to get through the Committee stage of this Bill in seven days. That will provide ample opportunity for those who wish to make suggestions and to bring arguments to the notice of the House. For that reason, I support the Motion.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out "seven," and to insert "twelve."

Member after Member has, rightly, emphasised the importance of the industry which will be affected by the Bill to which this Motion is directed. This is in many respects the most important of all industries. Every industry affects a certain number of the population directly and probably all of us indirectly; but this industry affects everyone directly as well as indirectly.

That being so, it is most essential that any changes that are to take place in the industry should be debated and discussed as fully as is possible. I congratulate the Government upon bringing this Bill to the Floor of the House to be debated. In the old days it was rare to send a Bill upstairs. The usual rule was that a Bill should be debated in Committee of the whole House.

I am old enough now to remember those major Bills brought in between 1906 and 1914. Almost without exception they were taken on the Floor of the House, and very rightly. It is not so much a question of the number of us who can take part directly in the debate; the fact is that we are part of the Committee, we attend the Committee and we hear what takes place. Every now and then we can make an interjection, or pass a word to an hon. Friend who may be called.

One of the best descriptions ever given of this procedure was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is well worth the attention of any hon. Member of this House. My recollection is that it was said by him somewhere about 1937. He pointed out that although few took part in the actual debates on a Bill, everyone in the House was responsible for it, and that therefore the Bill, when it was finished with and sent away from us, was the Bill of the House and every Member in it. That being so, I am glad that this Bill will be debated on the Floor of the House. It affects every one of us and every one of our constituents.

The next point to which I refer is the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that he brought in this Motion with real regret. That point was put in another way by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I believe them both. They are both old Parliamentarians. Not one of us likes the Closure, Guillotine Motions, the selection of Amendments, and all that kind of thing. Those of us who have been here for some time are most anxious that the fullest possible debate should take place. I accept what was said by the Leader of the House as being absolutely sincere.

Again, on the question of leadership. I have had many years' experience and in every instance of which I can think, usually the one chosen as Leader of the House has regarded himself as not merely responsible for seeing that the business of the day goes through, but for the protection of the interests of the House. I am sure, from my knowledge of him, that that is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the present holder of the office.

I also regret not only that Guillotine Motions are being brought in but that my party was largely responsible for initiating them. In the old days before the Irish Members regarded their duty as being to stop all business in the hope that in that way, and in that way only, they could get Home Rule for Ireland, the business of the House went through without any of these devices. Suddenly it was found that the rules permitted all kinds of interruptions to take place, and the business of the House was brought to a standstill. It was my party, which on all occasions should be the supporters of free discussion and free speech, that was the one that had to introduce the Closure, selection of Amendments and this dreadful thing, the Guillotine.

I particularly regret the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on this occasion. I wish that he had taken a little more time to discuss the matter with the official Opposition to see whether it would not be possible to arrive at an agreement. I appreciate that he has tried to use—and very rightly—Standing Order No. 41, and I do not think that anybody who was a member of the Committee which discussed it could have any doubt that advantage should be taken of this procedure.

It is a device which should assist the Opposition, for they ought to be able to say, "These are the Clauses to which we take strong exception, or which we wish to have amended, and we want more time spent on them than upon certain others." Therefore, their word ought to carry much more weight in regard to the Allocation of Time Order than that of the Government.

So far, so good; but why could not the right hon. Gentleman have started by ascertaining, first of all, what would have been the attitude adopted by the official Opposition? It might have been that an agreement could have been arrived at, and how much better it would have been, in dealing with an industry of this vast importance, for the Government to accept the general consensus of opinion rather than use their power.

Secondly, why this haste? If there was a real hurry, this Bill ought to have been introduced not now, but in the last Session, in which case we should now have disposed of it and it would be under consideration in another place. I really cannot see why it is that at this time there should be any hurry. The answer that is given to us is, "We can do that, because there has been placed before the public and before the House a general statement with regard to the policy of the Government for well over the last 12 months. In fact, that has been the case ever since the Transport Act was passed by the late Government."

Hon. Members who support the Government today, but who were in Opposition then, said—and so did I—that we disliked intensely the nationalisation of road transport. We thought it was wrong, and that the industry should be free, so that without a doubt there has been a general policy statement ever since then, but that is not the same thing as bringing a Bill before the House. Of course it is not. We may have a matter being discussed time and time again and year after year, but nobody has ever said at that Box that, because of that fact, discussion in the House should therefore be curtailed.

I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, is in his place. May I quote him an instance, which, I must admit, goes back a very long way? My recollection of the Home Rule Bill which was introduced by my party, I think five or six times, is that it was practically the same Bill, and it was taken on the Floor of the House. Certainly, that Bill had been before the public and before us from 1885 to 1914, but nobody told us that because of that the House would have only one day's or half a day's discussion on it. No; we must consider this Bill as it is brought before us.

I do not wish to take up much time with regard to the matter generally, but may I now deal with the two Amendments which I have put down? Personally, I am in favour of the general principle of this Bill. I have said so all along, and I voted with the Government on Second Reading, but it is only right and proper that the fullest possible discussion and debate should be provided for it.

What I should really like to see, by the time this Bill leaves this House—and I hope I am not putting my expectations too high—is that this important industry should be raised above party politics, that this Bill should become more or less an agreed Measure, and that this should be the end of this controversy. In such a case, the industry, all the other industries dependent upon it and all of us could go along freely—and this point was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who spoke regarding the future of the workpeople in the industry. We cannot have that until the fullest possible opportunity has been given to debate the Bill in this House. We cannot have it by bringing into use the Guillotine machinery.

I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I shall be entitled to discuss at the same time both the Amendments standing in my name. It may be that there will be two Divisions on them; on the other hand, of course, the Government may agree—

Mr. Speaker

I think the answer is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can certainly discuss, if that is his desire, the second Amendment standing in his name while he is in process of moving the first Amendment.

Mr. Davies

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, because the second Amendment really follows upon the first.

The period of seven days is obviously much too short, even though there is the extension of the half an hour each day. If I may adapt a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, it is not a question of the acreage—the number of pages which we have to get through. What is really important is the principle contained in a Clause, and the extent to which it may be possible to get agreement upon it.

Let us take, for example, the various sections of the Bill. In the first part—[Carriage of Goods by Road]—there are nine Clauses. Can anybody say that these could be debated properly in four days? That is why I think this Timetable should provide for 12 days instead of seven. If we take only the first two Clauses, I doubt whether we should get a really full discussion on all the Amendments that might be put down to them.

I am going to deal with this matter very shortly, because we have heard all the arguments before. Let us take the second part of the Bill—[The Transport Levy and the Transport Fund]—to which there is so much objection from both sides of the House and in various parts of the country. Here there are four Clauses, and surely two days would not be too much for them?

The next part—[Re-organisation of Railways]—is a very important part of the Bill. A very great man once said that he was amazed at his own moderation. I think I am almost amazed at my own moderation on this occasion, because all I have allotted there is one day. Next come Road Passenger Transport, Trade Harbours and Port Facilities, and here again there are two Clauses. On the next part of the Bill—[Charges]—there is bound to be a tremendous debate; there are Clauses numbered from 18 to 23. Two days are surely not enough when dealing with the effect upon the whole country of the charges now to be made?

I do not think Clauses 24 and 25 will take very long, but Clauses 26 and 27—[Pension Rights and Compensation to Employees]—are sure to give rise to a large number of Amendments. Is one day too much for those Clauses?

On my calculation, that leaves only one day for dealing with the Miscellaneous and General Clauses and the three most important Schedules. All this adds up to 12 days, and what I am asking the Government is that, if they insist upon a Guillotine, they should give us a proper Time-table. They should allow this Business Committee to allocate the time—I have done it very roughly—to provide for a much fuller discussion. Twelve days, surely, are the least that can be given in such a Time-table?

If I may now refer to the second Amendment standing in my name, I would say that it deals with the Report stage, to which the Government have given the very short time of only two days. We suggest that, even after having dealt with the whole Bill and having cleared up many points on the Floor of the House, owing to the system of selection of Amendments there are bound to be hon. Members, as there are now, who have not been able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but who will seek to take the opportunity on Report of saying what they have to say on the whole matter. I hope that the Government, even if they insist upon having the Guillotine, will accept these two very reasonable Amendments.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am really surprised that the Leader of the House should have the effrontery to continue with this Motion after what he has said in his own speeches and after what happened during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman announced that we were to be given two days for the Second Reading debate, doubts were expressed whether that would give the House sufficient time, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman, lightly waving the Bill in his hand, said that it was only a small Bill and that therefore he felt that two days were enough.

What was the result? After the two-days' debate had finished we found that there were several hon. Members on both sides of the House who had not had an opportunity of speaking, some of them with special qualifications for speaking in that debate. I know that the case of the National Union of Railwaymen was put by their representatives in this House, but one of the two hon. Members competent to speak on behalf of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, who were interested in the question of railway reorganisation, sat here for the two days without being called upon to speak.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) did not have the opportunity of putting forward some very pertinent points on the main principle of this Bill. Again, not a single word was said about the question of the passenger services for Scotland, a matter vitally connected with this Bill. There was an hon. Member on this side of the House specially qualified to speak on that matter, but he was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

What happened on the Government Front Bench during those two days? Time and time again the Minister of Transport himself had to hurry over things and say that he would leave them to be dealt with by his Parliamentary Secretary. That is what he said about Scotland. But when his Parliamentary Secretary came to speak he, too, was also in such a hurry that he almost lived up to the nickname of "Breathless," and he left the matter to be dealt with by the Home Secretary. But when the Home Secretary came to wind up the debate he only had time to excuse himself because of the shortness of time in which to give adequate consideration to Scotland and Wales, and he dismissed the matter in four lines.

We have actually proved that the Government's estimate of what is right is completely unreal, and the suggestion that seven days for the Committee stage of a Bill of this nature will meet the situation is absolutely fantastic. It is not good enough to justify an Allocation of Time Order on this Bill by comparing it with some other Bill in some other year. The Allocation of Time Order with regard to this Bill must be justified in the light of the present situation and in the light of the importance and actual contents of this Bill.

I do not think for a single moment that the Government have looked through the Bill at all with a view to seeing how properly and fairly to allocate the time. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was very moderate in his demand for more time, but his speech was ample proof that there was no justification for the seven days laid down by the Government.

The Leader of the House did not attempt to justify his Motion today; he merely excused it. He lamented and deplored it, but in no single sentence did he seek to justify the adequacy of seven days. As a matter of fact, he cited a Bill which went upstairs to Standing Committee and suggested that as on that occasion we had 76 hours in Committee, 49 hours should certainly be sufficient in this case when the Committee stage was being dealt with on the Floor of the House.

But what is the purpose of taking a Committee stage upstairs? Surely, the whole purpose of a small Committee upstairs is to get the business done quickly, and if there is any logic in the comparison between a Committee upstairs and a Committee of this House it only goes to prove that a Committee of the whole House, consisting of 625 Members, requires more and not less time than that given to a Standing Committee. To suggest, therefore, that 49 hours is sufficient for a Committee stage taken on the Floor of the House is quite unreal.

The point was made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that a year had passed in which nothing was done, so that it was obvious that the matter could not be of very great importance. While we had the speech of the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) on Second Reading—I have been particularly watchful today regarding the appearance of Scottish Conservative Members, not one of whom appeared before 7 o'clock in this debate—

Mr. John Maclay (Renfrew, West)

I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have been looking very carefully during the first hour of the debate.

Mr. Ross

I have been sitting here all the time, though it may well be that I have been watching Mr. Speaker rather than the right hon. Gentleman, and if so I apologise to him.

I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West, but I heard from an hon. Friend of mine that when he last met him the right hon. Gentleman was going to address a Liberal conference in Scotland, at which he referred to a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in which he said: The Conservative Party … has been introducing a novel, most interesting and fair method of political and public discussion in the last six months. I think it was an excellent thing that a White Paper should have been introduced announcing the Government's general intentions, and that from that moment the Minister should have proceeded to hold an inquiry with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission and other leading elements up and down the country; that then the Government should have introduced the first Bill to test the reactions of Parliament, the Press and public opinion to it, and, finding that there was some opposition—as the hon. Gentleman said there was in 'The Times,' the 'Manchester Guardian,' 'The Economist' and other papers, and indeed from hon. Members on this side of the House—should then have withdrawn the Bill and introduced a new Bill which met the criticisms and embodied the proposals made."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1525.] Here is a strange thing from a party which claim to be the shining lights of political democracy. They are prepared to give six months to private enterprise interested in the matter to make proposals to the Minister of Transport, and for influential groups within the Tory Party to prod the Government about certain aspects of subsidising the railways which they do not like. They not only give them lunch, but they take them up to Prestwick to give them dinner. One cannot pick up the "Ayrshire Post" without seeing a picture of the Minister of Transport dining with people at Prestwick Airport, from which we draw our own conclusions.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

As I am also Minister of Civil Aviation, would the hon. Gentleman rather that I should not take my duties seriously and never go to Prestwick?

Mr. Ross

No, but I suggest that the next time the right hon. Gentleman goes to Prestwick he should give a little more satisfaction about his behaviour. However, that is outside this Motion.

Mr. Speaker

I do not see what that has to do with the Time-table.

Mr. Ross

The point is that for nearly a year proposals and consultations have been going on outside Parliament, but that when it comes to the actual Committee consideration of the Bill in this House we are allowed seven miserable days—[An HON. MEMBER: "They will not be miserable."] Miserable from the point of view of the transport industry, because that is just what they will be.

I was very interested in a lecture given in Kilmarnock last week and reported in the "Kilmarnock Standard" of this week. One of the officers of the Road Haulage Association was speaking, strangely enough, to the Unionist Party in Kilmarnock. He said that for the past six months consultations between the industry and the Ministry of Transport had been continuous. They are to be the kind of consultations and discussions under this fine new and novel and fair method of public discussion. But it is in this House that the future of the transport industry should be properly discussed, and it will not be properly discussed in the seven days allowed.

To take the question of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West discussed it at some length on Second Reading, but the fact is that if every Scottish Member who was sufficiently interested in the matter spoke for exactly the same length of time during the Committee stage, it would probably mean that there would be a whole day's debate on that one aspect of a Scottish authority.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

One day.

Mr. Ross

Yes, but will we have one day to discuss this matter?

Mr. Steele

We must.

Mr. Ross

We must remember what the Minister of Transport said about Clause 1. He said that, whatever Clauses would be discussed, there was bound to be considerably lengthy discussion on Clause 1. But shall we have it? We shall only have considerable discussion on Clause 1 at the expense of other Clauses. It is not that Clause 1 does not merit full consideration and discussion; it does. With regard to the points made about seven days, if this Bill merits 39 days for the searchlight of Parliamentary discussion, it should receive it and we should not tolerate hamstrung discussion because of the situation into which the Leader of the House has got the Government in the matter of Government time.

There is the question of all the Clauses mentioned on Second Reading and the problem of Scotland. We were told that Scotland not only merited lengthy discussion but would receive it. The Home Secretary said: The Government are willing to consider any constructive proposals which may be made in Committee, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1718.] Will they consider them? Will we ever get to them? The Government have done everything possible to ensure that we do not get to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West said there would be examination. It is a pity he was not then Minister of Transport or we might have been able to hold him to it.

He said: There has been a steady process of examination. This will continue during the Committee stage. He said earlier: This is a democracy, thank goodness, and there can be a lot of argument."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1649, 1654.] There will be as much argument as the Leader of the House, with his seven-day rule, permits, or the Patronage Secretary with his gleeful Closure. When the Minister of Transport was referring to this matter, he said: … the method of claiming, who will pay it and how the details will be devised, … will be debated in the Committee stage, and all that will come later; …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1417.] We have no guarantee that that will be properly debated on Committee stage. He was then referring to the early Clauses. Then there are Clauses 26 to 27 on compensation. All this discussion has to be carried out in seven days—discussion not only on the principle but the working out of that principle, the Amendments and the Questions that these Clauses stand part of the Bill. The Bill will not be discussed properly at all, and hon. Members opposite know it. It is not that the Government are concerned that debates on this Bill will be lengthy and protracted. It is that with every single lengthening of the debate the poverty of the Government's case will be disclosed.

In one of those rare moments of revelation that comes from the Front Bench opposite, we had from the Leader of the House a few days ago the real reason for this Motion to impose the Guillotine. It is because there is to be full opposition on this Bill; and it is because that opposition will prove that the Bill in no way meets the position in transport and the needs of the country that the Government are determined to gag and guillotine and even garrot, if they can, discussion of this Bill. This Motion is introduced out of prejudice. The Allocation of Time Order springs from fear, and where fear and prejudice usurp responsibility we are getting into a dangerous situation of irresponsibility and panicking tyranny.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) is not still with us, as he is one of the few Conservative Members who have been sufficiently interested in the rights of the House of Commons to take part in the discussion, or perhaps he has been one of the few who are sufficiently brazen to defend this Motion. He tried to defend the Leader of the House against the charge that he had not attempted to enter into any kind of discussion with the Opposition to obtain a proper Timetable and adequate time allotted for discussion of the Bill.

Why was it that the Leader of the House did not make an attempt of that kind? The hon. Member for Peterborough suggested that it was because the party opposite knew from experience that no agreement could be reached. He also went on to suggest that there were, as he put it, two Oppositions and that one could not be sure that if the Government made an agreement with one it would be kept by the other.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Reading, North)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Bennett) must be well acquainted with what happened on this very problem in the last Session. On the Army Act and the Finance Act during the last Session, it appeared to all sections of the House that it was reasonable to make an agreement as to the time allotted.

Mr. Bennett

Can the hon. Member say that during last year hon. Members on the back benches opposite, particularly below the Gangway, kept agreements made with the Front Bench?

Mr. Stewart

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what agreement was made by the Front Bench and broken by the back benches?

Mr. Bennett

No, I am not making a detailed statement as to which agreement it was. I am saying that anybody who has sat in this House would know that time and time again hon. Members on the back benches opposite have not kept agreements made through the usual channels with their Front Bench.

Mr. Stewart

It is the usual practice in this House when one cannot substantiate a charge to withdraw it. If the hon. Member has not the wit to do the one nor the decency to do the other, let the matter rest there. As he knows, there is no case of an agreement having been entered into and not honoured. I have quoted two substantial cases of Measures of first-class importance—the Army Act and the Finance Act—where it appeared to the whole House that the best thing to do was to make an agreed settlement as to the time to be allotted. The fact that those agreements were made shows that it is not reasonable to say that there was no chance of success this time, and the fact that agreements were honoured makes nonsense of the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough and those of the hon. Member for Reading, North.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

That was before the civil war broke out.

Mr. Stewart

Perhaps the hon. Member will rise and speak of those agreements which are alleged to have been broken.

Mr. Braine

I will rise very willingly. I will not quote an example of an agreement broken, but if I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough rightly, his statement was made in the light of the recent civil war which broke out in the party opposite.

Mr. Stewart

I have at least succeeded in getting two Members of the Government benches to their feet, which was more than any argument they might have felt was in favour of this Motion had been able to do. We may take it, therefore, that there is no substance at all in this contention that it is impossible to reach an agreement or that an agreement once entered into would not be honoured.

The main contention has been that it is proper not only to bring forward a Motion to impose the Guillotine on the Committee stage, for which there are precedents and which nobody could say in all circumstances would be unjustifiable, but to introduce the Guillotine Motion before the Committee stage has even been started. That is the most significant and sinister feature of the Motion which is now before us. It is argued that it is right to do that because the Government were afraid that the Bill would be strenously contested.

Mr. H. Nicholls

Is that not precisely what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) did?

Mr. Stewart

That was not a case of the Guillotine having been introduced before the Committee stage had been started. That is what we are engaged on at the present time.

Mr. Nicholls

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings, he will find that that is precisely what did happen. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Stewart

I will certainly withdraw that, but I will add that on that occasion, as was pointed out to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, an attempt was made to reach agreement with the other side, and it broke down. What is unique here is that a Motion of this kind is introduced when no attempt has been made to reach any agreement of any kind. That is justified on the ground that the Government expected that there would be opposition. I ask the Government—I would have asked the Leader of the House if he had thought it worth while to be present—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I should point out that he has sat here continuously all through the debate. He told me that he was only going to be away for 10 minutes. It is unreasonable and not typical of the usual generosity of the hon. Gentleman to say that sort of thing.

Mr. Stewart

I think the Leader of the House realises the extraordinary nature of the Motion which he has brought forward, and we are bound to look critically indeed at somebody bringing forward a Motion of this kind if he is absent during the discussion However, I do not want to press the matter unduly or unfairly.

I put this question to the Leader of the House when he first announced the nature of this proposal: is it to be a general and accepted rule that if a Government has grounds for expecting strenuous opposition to a Bill, it is entitled to put the Guillotine on the Committee stage before that Committee stage has begun?

I hope that question will be answered, because at some future date this subject of the organisation of the transport industry will be before a different Parliament, and a different Measure will be before that Parliament; and by that time it will be quite proper to argue that the rights and wrongs of the matter have been before the nation many times, and there will be quite a strong case on the lines of this precedent for cutting down quite severely any further discussion on a matter on which by then the nation will have had so many opportunities of expressing its opinion.

That is a thing that the Government ought to answer. Are they laying down as a general principle that whenever they have grounds for suspecting that there will be strenuous opposition to a Bill, they are entitled to put the Guillotine on the Committee stage before that Committee stage has started? It is important that we should know whether that is to become one of the traditions of Parliament at the present time.

I think we should ask why this Motion is being brought forward. It is not because this could be said to be a Bill that does not need a great deal of detailed discussion. The rather unhappy and limping history of the Bill suggests that it is likely to need a very great deal of discussion. After all, it is a topic on which the Government have already had not only second but third thoughts, and it is not likely that they have suddenly discovered the complete and perfect answer to the organisation of transport, even if the major principles in dispute are no longer argued. It is at least likely that there is a very great deal to be said by way of improvement of the proposals that they have now, after halting over the matter so frequently, put before us.

Then again, this is a Bill where there has been criticism not only from this side of the House or from those sections of opinion in the country which are most strongly represented on this side of the House. It has been criticised by people of many different types. It has been criticised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn); it has been criticised by a great many interests and groups of people in the country. It must be realised, therefore, that there are any number of quarters in which constructive suggestions for improving this Bill are bound to be made.

Nor is it a Bill that raises amendments only along one general line of thought. I do not want to develop this aspect of the matter too far, because we are not discussing the merits of the Bill itself, and because some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) and Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) have very forcibly brought out to the House a number of different topics with which this Bill deals. There are the very difficult financial arrangements. There are matters affecting the employment of large numbers of people both in road transport and in the railway industry. There are matters affecting the public safety. There is the whole question of what is to be the future of any attempt to integrate the transport industry of this country.

On a Bill where the Government themselves have been so hesitant in trying to decide what the right solution is, and a Bill to which the opposition and criticism has come from so many different quarters and on so many different topics, it is quite impossible to maintain that this is not a Bill that needs long discussion—as long, for example, as is suggested in the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies); indeed, many would think longer.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Peterborough to comments in "The Times" on this matter. He seemed to argue that there was not a lot of point in quoting what "The Times" said recently about the Motion before us today, but preferred to quote what it said about a Motion for a Guillotine on quite another matter. I should have thought, if we are to quote "The Times" at all, that it was at least as relevant to quote what it said on this Motion as to quote what it said some months back on a rather different topic.

Mr. Nicholls

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had made the specific point that the majority of the Government did not want the application of the Guillotine. He quoted "The Times" in support of it, and I quoted "The Times" on the general proposition, when it said: … not the least important is the contention that the Government's right to govern depends on the size of their majority. It is the duty of the Government to govern, whatever their majority. If the party opposite wish to quote "The Times" on one occasion, I suggest that this is a case where it should be quoted on another occasion.

Mr. Stewart

That is not a happy quotation because the function of the Bill is not to enable the Government to govern but to enable them to hand over the transport industry to a miscellaneous collection of private persons. If the hon. Gentleman reads with such interest and deference the opinions of "The Times," I hope he will have noticed what they said this morning about the complete inadequacy of the time proposed in this Motion.

This is something that has a real relevance to the question of what has come to be called industrial action. Only a few days ago I was arguing with a group of workers in the railway industry on the general subject of the propriety of using industrial action for political ends, and I was putting forward the view that I have put forward on many occasions, namely, that it is contrary to the whole principle of Parliamentary democracy in this country at the present time to use industrial action in those circumstances.

They very naturally pointed out that this was a matter that might affect the livelihood of many of them, and it is not always easy for a man who believes that his livelihood or his safety is affected by a piece of legislation to feel that the civilised conflicts that we have in this House are an adequate representation of the intensity of feeling that he may well have on the matter.

I therefore urge that the feelings that they have, the point of view that they represent, should not remain silent in the House and that they should be put forward with emphasis throughout the whole of the Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, the Government themselves come to the aid of the advocates of undemocratic industrial action by trying to reduce the efficiency and authority of the proper action which should be taken in the Parliamentary debate on this Bill. The more we do this kind of thing in Parliament the harder it becomes to defend the authority, the dignity and the general rightness of the Parliamentary method of settling disputed points which is now challenged in so many quarters of the world.

Further, it cannot be argued that this Motion has been introduced because the Government have a great legislative programme weighing upon them at this time. If we look at the Queen's Speech, which we were debating not so long ago, and compare it with what previous Parliaments have managed to do in previous Sessions without so drastic a use of the limitation of time as is now proposed, it cannot really be suggested that their legislative programme justifies this Motion. Even if that programme were sufficiently heavy to justify it, what about the waste of time which occurred last Session?

I judge that not by any professions which hon. Members opposite made at the time of the General Election but what they themselves, in the King's Speech last year, announced they would get through and proved, through their inability to conduct business, to be unable to get through. If they had been able to conduct business a little more competently last Session, they would not be making so many complaints about the shortage of time in this Session.

Suggestions have been made that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is perhaps not entirely suited to his vocation. I am sure my hon. Firends would agree with me when I say that if he gives up that vocation I hope he will not become the driver of a bus, because if he does I am perfectly certain that it will be a bus that dawdles through the first two-thirds of its journey and then speeds like an arrow from a bow to make up for the time lost before the end of the route is reached. That is why we have this Motion before us so early in this Session.

The Motion is being introduced partly because this Bill is being dealt with in Committee of the whole House rather than in Standing Committee upstairs. I take the view—although it may be a personal one—that for the purposes of a Bill of this nature a Standing Committee upstairs is not an inferior method of treatment to treatment on the Floor of the House. I think it is right that constitutional Bills should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House, but are the Government going to tell us that they regard the public ownership of basic industries as part of the Constitution of this country? If they are, we shall await their statement with considerable interest.

On a proper interpretation of the words this cannot be regarded as a constitutional Measure. In view of its great wealth of detail it is more likely to get proper discussion if it is given a longer time upstairs than a truncated time on the Floor of the House. We know why it is not being sent upstairs. It is because the Government fear that they might not always have a majority in the Committee Room. If they are worried about that, let them tell their Members to attend Committee meetings in the mornings with sufficient regularity to make sure that they always have a majority. There is no reason why we should be asked first to take the Bill on the Floor of the House and then devote insufficient time to it, merely in order to relieve hon. Members opposite from the necessity of attending Standing Committees.

Another reason for this Motion is that the Leader of the House feels that he really must do something to raise his prestige after the rather unfortunate record of last Session. There was an occasion, when he was in Opposition, when he was critical of the then Government's handling of business and coined the memorable phrase: "Muddle, muddle, toil and trouble." His experiences last year have perhaps persuaded him of the truth of the belief that is common among actors, that it is unlucky to quote from "Macbeth." He has now taken upon himself a new role from that same play. He may remember the scene where Lady Macbeth says to her husband, when they are planning a squalid assassination: If 'twere done 'twere well that 'twere done quickly.

Captain Richard Pilkington (Poole)

The hon. Member is quoting from "Macbeth" now.

Mr. Stewart

Unlike the Leader of the House, I quoted correctly. I did not try to improve on the original.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

What about: "Out, out, brief candle"?

Mr. Stewart

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the Minister of Transport appear now as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in this particular squalid piece of business. We shall not even have the consolation of seeing the right hon. Gentleman, at some future date, sufficiently moved by conscience to be walking in his sleep wringing his hands for the wrong that he has done.

Why have we had the Bill at all and why have we had this Motion? That is what is really at issue. We have had the Bill to placate the financial interests behind the Conservative Party—and I am reminded that this is not the first time it has happened; the brewers were concerned in an earlier Bill—and we have the Motion today partly because the Government made a muddle of their Parliamentary Time-table last year, partly because Conservative Members cannot be bothered to do Committee work in the mornings and partly because they feel that the sooner this rather unsavoury business is cleared from the public eye the better. Those are the considerations which are to be allowed to outweigh the rights of hon. Members and the dignity of Parliament.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. S. S. Awbery (Bristol, Central)

I was hopeful that by this time the Leader of the House would have been convinced of the necessity for what the Opposition is asking, especially after hearing the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). We can regard his opinion as unbiased. He put up a very strong case on behalf of the Opposition when he moved his Amendment.

He said that this Bill affects the whole of the community. This is indeed the life blood of the community and, instead of helping the free flow of this life blood, the Government are applying a tourniquet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke from the point of view of the interests of the people generally. I want to say a word not only on behalf of the general public but of the million men who are engaged in this industry, in rail, road passenger and road commercial transport. There are over one million men engaged in it, and they are perturbed, disturbed and anxious about the position that is going to arise when this Bill is passed. On their behalf, I want to make the strongest possible protest against the action of the Government in curtailing the time available to the House to discuss this matter.

If the same procedure had been adopted in negotiations between the old employers and the workpeople in this industry and a strike had ensued, we should have been the first to condemn it. We should have said, "Continue your discussions until you can come to an amicable understanding on the matter." That is just what this House is not doing. It is not attempting to arrive at an amicable understanding. It is forcing this procedure through the House of Commons. I understand that the Guillotine was introduced in the first place because the legitimate business of the House was being prevented. Now it is being used to prevent adequate discussion of the real business which is to come before us.

The million men in the industry are concerned about the sell-out, because this is not the first sell-out to take place. I was associated with this industry, organising men, when not 5 per cent. of the vehicles on the road were mechanically propelled and when 95 per cent. were horse-drawn; I have watched this industry grow and change, and I have watched legislation adapted to the changes which have taken place. I recall the sell-out of 1919, when the Government had in their hands thousands of motor vehicles and sold them for £10 each, although they were valued at £600 each. They did not sell them to the workers or to members of my party. They sold them to people who started haulage businesses.

This increased the number of haulage contractors competing with each other for the work which was available until, as a result of competition, these men could not pay their way. The next attack was on the wages of the workers. The wages and conditions of the haulage workers came tumbling down year after year. That is what the men in the industry are disturbed about today, and they want their point of view heard on the Floor of the House. After all, this is the forum of democracy this is the safety valve of democracy; and if we stop the safety valve from working, we can expect trouble in the industry.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the dissatisfaction and concern felt by transport workers. It is only fair that I, who represent a constituency with a large transport population, should make clear to him that that dissatisfaction does not exist in my constituency. A mass meeting was held in my constituency by the Socialist Party a short time ago and only 24 workers turned up to it. I have had only two letters on the subject and 54 postal chits printed by the Labour Party.

Mr. Awbery

I am grateful for that intervention, which gives me an opportunity to clear up one or two points which have been made previously. When the 1947 Act was before the House, we were twitted by the then Opposition that we had not consulted the workers in the industry to see whether they wanted nationalisation or not. Some workers were opposed to nationalisation—prompted, of course, by their employers and by fear of losing their employment—and they sent resolutions to hon. Members opposing the nationalisation of the transport industry. They had not then had any experience of nationalisation.

I am asking the Government to do exactly the same thing as they asked us to do then. Have hon. Members opposite consulted any organised workers in the transport industry in their constituencies? Have they received any resolutions from organised workers in their constituencies opposing the de-nationalisation of transport? I know they have, because 100 per cent. of the organised workers in the industry are opposed to it. I have held meetings and demonstrations in several towns where the men are protesting against this change, and I emphasise that the protest is not being worked from the top but is being worked from the bottom. It is the men themselves who are making a strong protest against the change.

Why are they afraid of the change? I will give one or two reasons. They are afraid of going back to the old conditions. They remember when a long-distance driver would drive until he was too tired to continue his journey, would pull into the side of the road for a nap and then when he awoke would drive on to complete his journey. The Government will tell us that there was legislation to prevent these men from working for longer than five hours at the wheel, but this legislation was honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Why was that? Because the men were afraid that they would lose their jobs if they did not do it. In addition, we had vehicles on the road which were unfit to be there and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

The hon. Member must relate his argument to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Awbery

I am trying to show why this Bill should be debated on the Floor of the House and more time given to it. The workers in the industry are asking that time should be given on the Floor of the House to discuss their conditions. That is why I am protesting against this Order. We have watched the legislation introduced to deal with the industry as we have moved from horse transport to motor transport and we have seen the establishment between employers and employees, by legislation, of a very fine industrial machine—one of the finest in the country. The men in the industry are afraid that this machine will be broken down and that they will be driven back to the conditions of years ago. They do not want that.

The question of industrial action has been mentioned. We cannot always prevent industrial action. Hon. Members opposite have frequently twitted us for not controlling our men in unofficial strikes. But these men may say, "We are dissatisfied with the legislation of this Government; we must do something to protect our conditions, and the only thing we can do is to introduce industrial action." Was not this done after the Reform Bill, when men were dissatisfied because they did not receive what they expected? They started industrial action. We had the riots in Wales which followed the disappointment of the people.

I hope the Leader of the House will withdraw this Motion. We have given a day to discussing whether we should give another day to discussion of the Bill—a day which could have been spent in discussing the Bill. I ask the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to the request of the men in the industry and to bear in mind what they will lose and what they fear. Let us have a free discussion of the problem.

The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked for 12 days, but I do not think even 12 days is enough to discuss such an important Bill as this. I hope the Leader of the House will give consideration to this plea. If he does not, it will not be government of the people, by the people and for the people, but Government by the method of gagging the Opposition. I hope the Leader of the House will give heed to the case which has been made by hon. Members on this side of the House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I should like to refer to a point which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made in reply to my right hon. Friend who moved the Motion. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was trying to rebut the argument of my right hon. Friend and to maintain that there was no precedent value in the action by himself and his party in Government in applying the Guillotine in his Iron and Steel Bill in 1948 and adduced as an alleged excuse the Gas Bill. I had a word with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, and I told him I was raising his point, and he felt that, no doubt, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others would be able to deal with me very effectively if I went off the track of accuracy.

It was stated by him that for two hours the Standing Committee on the Gas Bill debated the question whether there should be an S or a Z in "nationalisation" and "carbonisation," and words of that kind. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of that Committee, and if anybody likes to turn to column 467 they will see that the proceedings went on to 469 for only two or three columns, which, out of the 24 pages covered by the proceedings of two and a half hours the Committee met, means that the Committee cannot possibly have spent more than six minutes on that matter.

I would point out also that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, dealt very pleasantly with a very short and reasonable but definitely minor issue. First of all, it was admitted that there was an error and that it needed putting right; second, I made the point which, I think, anybody in the printing trade will know to be a valid one, that printers do need to know what are to be the "house rules." It is important for a body like the House of Commons to settle for their benefit what are the standards by which it proposes to print. Anyhow, the Minister of Fuel and Power, as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) would agree with me in thinking, in amending the Bill came down on the wrong side and preferred an s throughout for something which clearly has the sound of z. At any rate, it was put into the Bill after only six minutes of discussion.

I do want it to be clear that the proceedings in the Gas Bill Committee were not unduly long. They were not longer—in fact, they were shorter in number of hours—than those on the Electricity Bill. It was a Bill to which, as a result either directly or indirectly of the deliberations which went on upstairs, over 100 Amendments were accepted by the Government. That was not to be wondered at, because the Gas Bill had been modelled on the Electricity Bill and, of course, that was a strategic error in itself, in that gas is a very different type of supply from electricity, and there needed to be a great number of Amendments, and they do take time.

Moreover, I do think that it is a reflection on the Chair to maintain that there was obstruction or repetition upstairs, and I would say that in Mr. Jack Diamond, whom we all respected very much, we had one of the best possible Chairmen we could have had, and at no stage was it suggested that he was failing to do his duty in the Chair.

Finally, it may be relevant when I say that, in taking what I might claim to have been a rather courageous line in the South-West in advising all gas consumers in the South-West to refuse to pay their accounts, I naturally took a bit of legal advice, because that is not the sort of irresponsible action which a Member likes to take without going very thoroughly into it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Direct action."]

I passed to my solicitor who was advising me a copy—my own copy—of this tome, the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the Committee, and I was surprised to find over the weekend that he found it so fascinating that he read it through from cover to cover, and what is more he said he just did not understand how people could keep up, both Ministers and Opposition, the highest standard of debate and attention to detail which had gone on throughout the whole of those proceedings.

If we really want to know what was the reason for those all night Sittings it was not that the proceedings were unnecessarily long or lengthened in any way, but the needs of Parliamentary time imposed by one of the usual channels. The right hon. Member for South Lewisham had a definite intention of finishing that Bill by Whitsun so that Bills could be put through to the House of Lords, if necessary, again in a very short Session which was to follow.

There has been built up a myth of obstruction out of the debates on the Gas Bill, based solely on the fact that the Committee sat through inordinately long consecutive hours and during hours in which more intelligent people are sleeping peacefully in bed; but the need for those exceptional continuous hours and that exceptional lateness was merely that there was in effect a Guillotine imposed without coming to this House, and there was introduced a Parliamentary procedure to break down the Opposition by keeping them sitting continuously so that they could not properly attend to their duties in the House.

Mr. Popplewell

The hon. Gentleman has just made a statement that there was a Guillotine imposed without coming to this House. Surely, for the purposes of the record he does not want that to go unchallenged? The Guillotine was approved by this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I find it a little difficult to follow this argument. It appears to be an argument to justify a Guillotine on a previous occasion. That has nothing to do with this Motion.

Mr. Pitman

The point I am trying to deal with is the argument which has been adduced by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, that the Guillotine procedure which he advocated for this and brought to this House was necessitated by the absence of the Guillotine procedure over the Gas Bill. I should like the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) to take my point. There was no Guillotine in connection with the Gas Bill. There was found a way round the methods of this House, by penalising or forcing the Committee to sit continuously, through day and night, to get the work through by a particular time.

Mr. William Oldfield (Manchester, Gorton)

I was on that Committee. I know full well what happened. The principle was integration, and there is the same principle here. We are not going to have a discussion to that effect.

Mr. Pitman

I should be out of order if I went into that particular point. The particular point I want to make is that facts, in this Chamber above all places, ought to be sacred, and we must not have six-minute periods referred to as two hours, and we must recognise that there are methods, as, for instance, continuous late night sittings, by which, in fact, proceedings upstairs can be effectively curtailed by the Government.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

None of us would attempt to defend using the time of this House in a flippant manner by way of filibustering to hold up the business of the House, but that is something very different from the proposition we are asked to consider today by the Leader of the House. Our main objection to this proposal is that here we are dealing with the problem of the reorganisation of the transport industry which is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) so rightly said, vital, and effects the life of every individual and the whole economic life of the community in this country.

A Government which limits discussion so narrowly, as is proposed today, is, in our view, doing no service to political democracy or to itself, and is doing a disservice to the men in the industry. In the last resort it will not improve the difficult transport situation in which the country finds itself, but will put our transport industry in a worse position. It may be a consolation to some of us to know that, although through this Measure we shall not get the improvements we wish to see, we may have a further opportunity to improve the conditions of the men in the industry, for certainly their conditions cannot rest after the meagre discussion today and in the next few weeks.

We are all anxious to improve the economic life of the country. Goodness knows, we have difficulties enough without making any for ourselves, and it is vital that industrialists, who are concerned over the charges for their goods and over the kind of service provided for bringing their raw materials and transporting their finished products to the docks, to know what is involved in a Measure of this kind. I should not be in order in discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill, but I merely make the general point that there are sections of the community who have for some time been anxious about the future of the transport industry and the repercussions it may have upon other industries and the economic life of the nation. There were many questions which they had earnestly and genuinely hoped would be properly dealt with during the debate on this Bill.

Whatever views we may hold of the political outlook of the Prime Minister, we concede at least this, that he is a great Parliamentarian. He has been here sufficiently long and has seen sufficient of the world to know a great deal about Parliamentary institutions. When the Labour Party formed the Government he very often reminded us that some of the Measures we were taking smelt of totalitarianism, and he said that there was inadequate time for the discussion of important Measures. He had hoped, he said, that the Labour Party would have a respect for democratic processes so that, whatever our views, we could discuss and hammer the thing out, and let the best views win. We recall that he asked why our ordinary citizens were peaceful and law-abiding, and why the ordinary man in the street was prepared to respect the laws which we passed here and which were administered in the country through the courts.

He made great play of the fact that the reason ordinary citizens had that respect, and the reason why this country differed very much in that regard from some Continental countries, was because they felt that, having elected their representatives to this honourable House, there were means here by which their point of view could be heard. He said that our institution was respected for that, and that our work and decisions were respected; that, while they often disagreed with the decisions taken and while they watched with great anxiety the violent scenes which sometimes take place in this House, yet ordinary men and women were sufficiently sagacious, law-abiding and respectful of our system that they accepted those decisions, hoping that in the course of time they would be able to influence the point of view of their representatives and of the Government, and produce changes by peaceful processes.

That was a very important contribution from the right hon. Gentleman, and he will be interested to know that it did not fall on deaf ears; that some of us remember it and at a time when Parliamentary democracy is very much in question in some parts of the world it is not without profit to remind ourselves of what he said.

We have here a Measure which was introduced in a very halting way, over nine months of time, so we are told, by a Government which first of all produced a White Paper setting out some of their views about the future development of the industry, then a Bill, and then a second Bill. Meeting with opposition, not only partisan opposition, as some have described it—doctrinaire opposition from these benches—but opposition from their own friends, from industrialists of every kind, from chambers of commerce and licence holders, from experts in the industry and technical and trade journals all over the country, they had seriously to change their point of view in many respects about some of these important matters.

We are glad that they listened to that opposition, and some of us welcomed the Minister's statement on Second Reading, and earlier when we discussed the White Paper, that the problem was so difficult, and the resolution of the difficulties so vital for the economic life of the nation, that the Government would listen carefully and with sympathy, hoping to profit from the views contributed, from whatever quarter they came. He gave us to understand that there would be adequate time for all this to be done, and we hoped that there would be opportunity out of our experience, not as syndicalists, not as people whose interest in the matter was merely a concern with the working conditions of those in the industry—although that is certainly vital—to take the wider view of all sections in the country and consider the good life of the nation. We had hoped that in these matters, which will make or break something vital in the life of the nation, we would not race so hurriedly through this important Measure as is proposed.

The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said that the financial implications of the Bill were far-reaching. Indeed they are. There are many people who believe—and I shall not go into the merits of it—that the terms of acquisition of some of the undertakings, railways and road vehicles, were far too generous. Some of us have gone about the country addressing meetings on the subject. Some of us who have worked in the industry, and have colleagues who still work in it and are closely associated with the problems of the industry, have heard this criticism that we were too generous, and that it has been shown that an impossible burden was placed on the industry. But it was not our policy to confiscate; we wanted to pay reasonable compensation, and if we made a mistake, as we may well have done, it was a matter for argument and discussion.

Many of our colleagues thought that when their bread and butter was concerned it was legitimate that as organised workers they should, if necessary, resort to industrial action. I am sure hon. Members opposite will not have failed to notice that at the Morecambe Conference there was strong agitation from a section of that Conference for a promise to be given that industrial action should not be permitted. Possibly the greatest argument at the Conference was that we must use political processes as a means of righting these matters, that we must respect our democratic institutions, and that if once we began to play ducks and drakes with a system which had been built up after being fought for for so long, we should not know where we were going.

When we are told today that there is inadequate time to discuss this matter—and there certainly is inadequate time—let us consider this from the point of view of the financial effect upon the railways. There is the question of the compensation for the acquisition of the railways. A new situation arises when a Government, which does not believe in this policy, comes along and legitimately, from their point of view, seek to break up the organisation. What will be the result? It can only weaken the assets of the remaining portions of the industry. Does anyone who regards the industry as an integrated and co-ordinated system think that a certain section valued at £x can have an identical value in a completely new set of circumstances? People in the country will say, "There you are, the reaction is at work, breaking down the country's assets and the good work that has been done piece by piece, in the interests of their friends."

I have talked about the financial implications concerning the railways and the anxiety of traders, and I have also made brief reference to the question of charges. It was laid down in the 1947 Act that there should be a charges scheme produced within two years of the passing of that Act. In the event, it has proved an impossible task. It is a highly-complicated and difficult business, and no one yet knows what the final result will be on this question. I know from practical experience that, after the passing of the 1921 Act, it took 10 years to work out some of the problems in relation to the classification of traffic and the proper rate of freight charges. I am not surprised that it has taken so long under the new set up.

How can we throw any light on these difficult matters if we are to be limited to 49 hours, if we are lucky, to deal with 35 Clauses and three Schedules, many of which are highly complex. Any one of them might engage a whole day or a couple of days. If we could resolve any one of these Clauses—the question of charges or the future of the railways—in such a way that it would leave the country better organised in its transport system and in a more happy condition so far as getting first-class transport was concerned, the time spent would be a first-class investment.

As I said when I read the White Paper, the proposals of the Government were frivolous in many regards. Equally so today, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the time which he now asks us to accept—seven working days; 49 hours—are certainly inadequate, and to describe them as frivolous would be a gross understatement.

I suggest that the Government in their own interest and in the interests of the country, for the sake of the democratic process itself and because of the respect which men and women in this country have for the law, and, incidentally, but no less important, because of the anxiety of the men in the industry who do not know where they are going or the jobs which they are to have, and because the great body of the 600,000 railway workers are anxious to give of their best to the country, should reconsider this proposal, which cannot but render a very bad service to the country.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead)

I venture to suggest to the House that the Government today find themselves in a completely indefensible position. Not only are they in an indefensible position, but I believe that they know they are in that position. I think that they know that because of the extraordinary thing that has happened in this House today, to which apparently no one has referred.

We have had speaker after speaker rise from this side of the House in this debate, and time after time when they have sat down there has not been a single speaker rise from the back benches opposite to defend the Government. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker have both found themselves in a position of having to call other speakers from this side of the House one after the other because no hon. Member on the back benches opposite has been in a position to defend the Government.

Then there was what I, personally, feel to be rather a significant thing. I am sure that the House has the utmost regard for the Home Secretary, but whenever the Government put up the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reply to a debate which does not come within his own Department, I always take the view that the Government have a shockingly bad case. When they have a shockingly bad case they bring in to defend them one of the most distinguished lawyers they have on that side.

Mr. Pannell

He makes it worse.

Mr. Collick

That may be, but even when the Prime Minister gets himself into a mess, it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whom the Government bring in to defend them.

I take the view that any Government at any time should be exceedingly reluctant to stifle discussion in this House. I also take the view that when a Government with a big majority introduces the Guillotine Motion they must go out of their way to satisfy this House and the country that they have a case for so doing. When a Government such as we have today, a Government which has no large majority in this House and which certainly has no majority in the country behind it—[Interruption.] I presume that hon. Members opposite, whatever else they may have divided views about, would have no divided view on the numbers of the voters who supported them and the numbers of voters who supported us in the last Election. Everyone knows perfectly well that by votes in the country the country is behind this Opposition and not behind the Government—

Mr. Kenneth Thompson (Liverpool, Walton)

What about Wycombe?

Mr. Collick

I am perfectly willing to discuss that if it is in order, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that there is a place called Dundee, and that they should remember the result there.

Mr. Thompson rose—

Mr. Collick

No, I am not giving way. A Government in the position in which this Government is at the moment ought to be scrupulously careful before coming to the House of Commons to stifle free discussion.

Last week—the Government having decided that we should have two days for the Second Reading of this important Bill—there was the position that a number of us on these benches for the whole of those two days rose on every occasion but had no opportunity of taking part in the debate. One began to ask oneself, in matters of this kind, what do constituents send Members of Parliament here for? I have a large number of constituents affected by the proposal of this Bill. I speak for a very large number of others, whose life and working conditions are intimately affected by this Bill. Therefore, I think that there ought to be a maximum of free discussion on behalf of our constituents on an important Measure of this kind.

In my submission, the Government have completely failed to sustain the case for introducing a Guillotine Motion before we had even started the Committee stage of this Bill. I am a little astonished that the Home Secretary should be a party to this sort of business. I should have thought that, as an able lawyer, he would have had enough experience of the shortcomings of legislation, even when legislation is open to free debate, to know that when legislation suffers the imposition of a Guillotine it becomes almost impossible.

We have two days for the Second Reading debate, but not one word was said on the tremendously important Clause 14—not one word. Here, the Government are proposing to abolish the Railway Executive Committee. They are proposing that only the Transport Commission Chairman should be a full-time member. No one is clear, least of all the Government themselves, when the Railway Executive Committee has been abolished and only the Transport Commission has a full-time chairman, what is to be substituted in place of the Committee. They have put in these nebulous words about area authority and the rest, but there is no clear idea of what they want to do. They then throw the onus on the existing Transport Commission to tell the Government what to do about it.

In my short lifetime I have seen men suffer much by what Government legislation has failed to do when it has been free and open debate without the Guillotine. I will give a short example. I recall the Measure which transformed the old 120 railway companies into the four main-line groups with which we are familiar. Those responsible for putting that Act of Parliament on the Statute Book, without a Guillotine, thought—I suppose quite honestly and genuinely—that they had safeguarded the position of the staff, because there was put into that Measure terms which sought to ensure that the condition of the staff should not be worsened as a result of the merger into four groups.

But what actually happened? Before the merger was effected, the London South-Western Railway Company used to pay their engine drivers, when they retired, a gratuity of 28s. 6d. a week. But that gratuity was paid at the option of the board of directors. When the merger was effected and the four groups were formed, they took the authority to bring that 28s. down to the miserable sum it is today. There are ex-main line enginemen with 40 years' service who are today picking up a miserable 5s. 6d. a week.

Why? Because although the Act said that the conditions of the staff were not to be worsened, we found—I am sure that the Home Secretary, with his legal knowledge, will appreciate this—that the Bill did not safeguard the position because this gratuity was at the option of the board of directors, which meant that they had the option of reducing it or even the option of abolishing it, and in law we could not do a thing about it.

Clause 14 and these other Clauses—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

Wait for it.

Mr. Collick

Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I was suggesting that the hon. Members' remarks were more apt to Clause 14 when we reach it during the Committee stage.

Mr. Collick

I could not agree more with the noble Lord. My remarks are appropriate to Clause 14, but I am in the same position as the noble Lord in the matter. He cannot tell me how long we shall have to discuss Clause 14, or if we shall have any time to do so. It may well be that when we get the Time-table from the Business Committee Clause 14 will not have any time allocated to it. Can the noble Lord then tell me how much time we shall have?

If he is as concerned as I and my hon. Friends are that they and he should have an opportunity to speak on Clause 14, I urge the noble Lord to come with us in the Lobby tonight and never mind about his constituents in Dorset. I can assure him of the support of the railwaymen in Dorset for this proposal. If the noble Lord will come into the Lobby tonight and support us, so that we get a greater amount of time to discuss Clause 14, I assure him that I will invite the railwaymen in Dorset to give him at least a vote of confidence.

Under Clause 14 and the following Clauses we are to decide what authority, if any, is to be set up under the new administration of railways. That will affect the working conditions, the wages, the place in which men live—there is no more acute problem on the railways than that at this moment—and whether they are to be transferred here or there. Areas cannot be altered in the way in which this Bill proposes without altering the places where men live. I know the difficulty we have had in recent years in dealing with problems like this. We have our finger on the spot, and we know what we are talking about.

If the Government are proposing, as this Bill does, to create area authorities and the rest of it about which nobody has any clear ideas at the moment—I know very well what is the view of the railway operators on the matter—the Government will get their fingers burned if they are not very careful because, when they start interfering with men, their working conditions, etc.—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

So long as the hon. Member is relating his argument to the Time-table, that is in order. I hope that he will not go into too great detail about the Bill.

Mr. Collick

I appreciate very much the point you have in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point of my submission is that so much is involved by the effect of these Clauses that unless the Government give more time than is proposed under this Allocation of Time Order it will be impossible fully to discuss them. That is the importance, the whole importance, of this matter, and that was the reason which prompted me to speak.

I urge the Government, even now, to have second thoughts about this matter. It is no use deploring things which happen in industry after they have happened. The thing to do is to be wise before the event. Nothing can be more damaging to those of us who have to deal with industrial problems day by day than to give the opinion in the country, which is bound to develop if this Motion goes through, that we are curtailing discussion on this tremendously important Bill, especially so far as the railways are concerned—because it affects the working lives, wages, homes and the whole gamut of things—without a free and adequate discussion. I appeal to the Government to think again about this and to give us more time to discuss this tremendously important Bill.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

A short while ago the Leader of the Liberal Party made a plea for greater time for the discussion of this Bill. With some of his remarks I am bound to agree, although his speech brought to mind a phrase used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on another occasion when he talked about "balanced flexibility." I think that the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party seemed to indicate that he was trying to clout the ear of the Leader of the House with one hand and shake hands with him with the other, and that was a rather difficult operation.

I believe that this Motion and the whole debate are a reflection of the complete ineptitude of the Leader of the House and his complete inability to get the business of the Government through the House. His contributions last Thursday and this afternoon have not enhanced his already very poor reputation as Leader of the House.

He sought to argue, if I interpreted him aright, that no Bill ought to be taken upstairs in Committee. I was a member of a Committee with the Home Secretary, who is presumably to wind up this debate, when the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill was taken upstairs in Committee. It might be argued—indeed it was argued by the Leader of the House this afternoon—that a Bill which is very important ought to be taken on the Floor of the House. Presumably the corollary of that is that a Bill which is not important is taken upstairs. Presumably therefore the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill was not important.

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why, if it was not important, was it guillotined, and why was it given precedence over this Transport Bill? Indeed, it was the first bit of legislation introduced by the Government in the last Session. It was the only major piece of legislation which they got through during the last Session.

It is interesting to consider the Measures on which the Guillotine has been used in the lifetime of this Government. It was used on the National Health Service Bill, on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill. It is now to be used on the Transport Bill and there can be no doubt that it will be used on the Iron and Steel Bill. I maintain that the comparison with the 1947 Bill which was made by the Leader of the House this afternoon is completely irrelevant. That argument was dealt with most effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) early this afternoon. In 1947 we had a Labour Government with an overwhelming majority. We had a clear mandate. There was no question of having three bites at the cherry, as the Government have had with this Bill. In a reference to this Measure the "Economist" of last week said: Few major pieces of legislation can have ever gone forward in so malleable a state. Again, the Minister of Transport, on the Second Reading said, in answer to an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole): That is the sort of reason why we shall give full consideration in Committee to these changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol 507, c. 1411.] That was an admission by the Minister of Transport which backed up the opinion of the "Economist" that this Bill was in a state where tremendous alterations could, and should, be made.

The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) suggested that there was no reason for any violent hurry about the Bill. I hope that he will make a contribution to this debate. Is he still of the opinion that there is no violent hurry about this Bill, and that there ought to be some kind of investigation before it goes through, or will he go into the Government Lobby tonight to vote for this Guillotine Motion? Perhaps he might indicate now what he proposes to do tonight. I am willing to give way if he wishes. I note that he does not. He is going to be driven into the Government Lobby. No doubt we may have a private talk afterwards and he will tell me what he really thinks.

The real reasons for this Motion are painfully obvious to everybody. To quote again from the latest edition of the "Economist," there is the statement: After so much delay and hesitation the Government now no doubt feels that its prestige will suffer if it does not get one major Bill into law early next year. The Government are fearful that they will not get any kind of major legislation into law if they allow free discussion of the Transport Bill. It appears to me that delay in getting legislation on to the Statute Book is due in the main to the sheer ineptitude of the Leader of the House. The Government Motion is an admission by him that he is completely incompetent and that he simply cannot get the business of the Government through unless he stifles discussion.

I believe, moreover, that another reason is that the Government, hard-pressed though they are, are indeed ashamed of this robbery, of this filching of public property, for the people who support them financially. The Government are creating a most dangerous precedent. I am not by nature a violent or vindictive man, but I must say that my first reaction on hearing and, what was equally important, on seeing the attitude of the Leader of the House last Thursday when he was grinning from ear to ear when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) talked about: industrial action for political purposes. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1952; Vol 507, c. 2058.] was that I would not say that I would withhold my support from such industrial action.

If and when a Labour Government get back into office, we must be equally ruthless in dealing with an Opposition which seeks to thwart the will of the people. We are now being given every encouragement. It has been said many times today, and it is worth repeating, that we on this side have the majority of the votes in the country. The Government have no right whatever to introduce legislation of this kind even if they allow maximum discussion. Still less can they justify the suppression of adequate discussion and the strangling of democratic procedure.

I remember that, in the last Parliament, an Irish priest was forced through the Lobby to vote on a very important Measure when the question whether he ought to sit in this House was actually sub judice. If the Government party are prepared to trample on democratic procedure like that, and, when in Opposition, behave as the perfect constitutionalists, as the Leader of the House used to do when he was in Opposition, then I give them due warning, speaking for myself, at any rate, that they are creating an extremely dangerous precedent by this kind of high-handed action.

This proposal has no justification and no relevance to the economic position of the country, and it can only reap a very dangerous harvest for the country. I urge the Government that, if they cannot drop this Motion altogether, they should at least give us more time, in line with the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)

During the period of the Labour Government, it was very fashionable on the part of the Tory Party for hon. Members to appeal to us to desist from certain actions on the ground of the interests of the nation. I think the party opposite would set a very good example to all Governments in the future, and would do a great service to the people of this country, if they withdrew the Transport Bill, with which this Motion is associated, altogether.

It is perfectly true, in regard to the Bill itself, that it is a Measure which has no support in the country and carries no authority from the electorate, and that is doubly true of this proposal which the Government now bring forward to curtail the time which we shall have to discuss this very revoluntionary change which they are proposing in the transport industry.

I have here a letter which I received about an hour ago from the Brighton No. 3 Branch of the National Union of Railwaymen. They have sent a similar resolution to the hon. Members for the Brighton area and also to the Minister of Transport, and they say: This branch, representing 1,100 railwaymen members, wish to make the strongest possible protest at the proposed method of dealing with the Transport Bill re the use of the Guillotine, which, in our view, is a negation of democracy and prevents full and frank discussion. We would ask your support in appealing to the Government to abandon the Guillotine method and deal with this serious matter, which affects our livelihood, in a normal manner. That kind of letter, coming from the ordinary electors of this country, and people whose livelihood will be affected by the Bill, is one of which the Home Secretary and his right hon. Friends should take due notice. When I consider the appeals that have been made from the other side of the House and by men of very high standing in the transport industry, including the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), I can see no justification for the Government going on with this Measure tonight.

Mr. Howard Johnson (Brighton, Kemptown)

As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Brighton, may I inform him that I have sent a telegram to the National Union of Railwaymen, Brighton, asking them if they sent a similar protest to the late Labour Government, which also put into operation the Guillotine?

Mr. Proctor

There would be a slight difference between that occasion and the present one. On that occasion, the Government of the day were conferring upon the railwaymen inestimable benefits, while today the gravest injury is likely to be done to the railwaymen of the country. I have no doubt that the railwaymen will send a suitable answer from Brighton, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us the answer during the course of the debates on the Transport Bill. I am very glad to know that he has had the railwaymen's resolution.

The Government are proposing great changes. The Government are not only in an indefensible position, as one hon. Member said today, but are also in a unique position. I do not think that in the whole history of this country there has ever been a major Measure introduced in this House of Commons which commanded so little support. I question whether there could be found on the Government benches themselves more than one Member who would say that he supported this Bill as it stands. That Member, of course, would be the Prime Minister, because the other evening we had an exhibition of how much knowledge he possesses of the transport industry and of the transport problem.

Let us see what justification the Government have for rushing through this Measure. At the present time they do not know what they wish to have done with the transport industry, and the Minister of Transport himself has said that they will listen with great care to proposals from both sides of the House, and will possibly make changes in the Bill. Was there ever a stronger argument for having plenty of time in which to debate those proposals, in view of the fact that the Government have announced that they are going to accept some of them?

As far as the railwaymen are concerned this Bill is fraught with the gravest danger. It proposes to de-centralise the transport industry. That is a matter which should receive the most careful consideration. We cannot be sure merely by looking at the Bill what are the Government's intentions, because they have announced beforehand that they are prepared to alter it.

Does this de-centralisation proposal involve an independent financial authority for the areas? If it does, it will involve railwaymen in disaster. We had experience of this in the old days when the Scottish railways were independent; we had the Scottish award which brought great difficulties into the railway world. I warn the Government that if they proceed along those lines and de-centralise the industry in that fashion, they are heading straight for disaster, because the railwaymen would be bound to fight such a proposal tooth and nail, when differential wage rates are proposed or imposed.

Let us look at the authority which the Government may think they have for dealing with this Bill. I am sure that had they published this Bill prior to the General Election, we should have had the Road Haulage Association supporting the Labour Party. They would have been so astounded at the propositions contained in this Bill that they would have given the Conservative Party no support for it. The people who have been "had" the most by this Government are the people who supported them during the General Election in the hope that they were going to have the 25-mile limit extended. What are they going to have now? According to the present proposals in the Bill, they are going to be faced with new competitors.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I hope the hon. Member will not go into the merits or demerits of the Bill, but will relate his argument to the Time-table.

Mr. Proctor

I am not discussing the merits of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because there are none. I merely want to point out the novelty of the situation as far as the Government are concerned. They are proposing to do something which, as far as I can find out, no Government have ever done before. They are proposing to hand over to their financial friends the property of the nation at a knock-down price.

No one knows whether we shall lose £20 million or £50 million in selling the road transport lorries that we have in our possession at present. I served on a local authority and I can recollect local authorities being surcharged on many occasions because of their alleged misdemeanours. There is a great case to be made out for surcharging hon. Members who are dealing with public property in this way. This proposal to sell the property of the nation at knock-down prices is one of the most wicked ever to come before the House of Commons.

In order that we should consider this matter, it would be better if we sat on Saturdays as well as on normal days. The railwaymen would be quite prepared to sit here and discuss this Measure fully On Saturdays. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Sundays."] I well remember the Prime Minister suggesting that we should stay here on Sunday once and getting into a terrible row with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I will not cause disruption on the Government Benches. It would be better to do without the Christmas Recess altogether. It would be better to send the Bill upstairs and debate it day and night rather than rush it through in this fashion.

There is no democratic authority whatsoever for these proposals. The Liberal Party are opposing the Government on this occasion. These are shameful proposals. If I were able to say that some financiers interested in this matter were not having their case dealt with properly, the Government would understand that, but the Government do not see anything shameful in dealing with the interests of the workers in this manner.

The Bill deals with the livelihood of men, their conditions of work, their compensation and it is wrong on the part of the Government to curtail its discussion. I hope that the Leader of the House will give further consideration to this matter, that he will withdraw this proposal and will let us have a longer period for full discussion of a measure which affects the interests of the whole nation.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I had intended to reply at the commencement of my remarks to the few observations that have been offered by hon. Members from the back benches opposite; but the only Member who spoke and is now present is the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) whose speech came to a rather untimely end when he discovered that the only point that he wanted to make would be out of order.

I regard it as quite wrong for anyone to reply to an hon. Member in his absence if one may reasonably expect him to be here. Since one would expect hon. Members to come in to hear the replies being made on behalf of the principal parties in the House, I will postpone any comments on their speeches in the hope that they may come in and will make my comments then.

There is, of course, a painful familiarity about one part of these debates and that is that each Front Bench tries to answer the other by quoting what the other said on a previous occasion. On the last occasion when we discussed this matter of a Time-table, on 23rd April of this year, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who then played the part now being assigned to the Home Secretary, did me the honour of quoting something that I had said when I was sitting on the Government side of the House.

He said that I then said: It was interesting to find how a speech that had been made by one hon. Gentleman who sat on the Opposition side, was answered by himself when he sat on the Government side, in the same terms as were used by the Member of the Government who replied to him when he was in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman paid me the compliment of saying that it was not only a remarkably accurate description of some portions of this debate, but also a remarkable statement to get through without making one single fault."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 501.] May I say that I never said it. I rather think that that is the effort of the Official Reporters to make some of my less intelligible remarks sound intelligent, and then the private secretary I then had, who was a most distinguished lady for this sort of thing, putting a final gloss on it that at least made it mean something. At any rate, I stand by it.

Therefore, I do not intend to quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal or any other Member now sitting on the Treasury Bench said when they were in Opposition. Each of these cases has to be defended on its merits, and I propose to examine the merits of this proposal.

I should like to know, in the first place, when the Government decided that they would put this Motion on the Order Paper, because there was no hint given during the Second Reading or on the Money Resolution that anything other than the most meticulous examination of this Bill was going to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport delivered a speech in opening the Second Reading debate and he wound up on the Money Resolution. I can well understand that, being one of those who is under an "overlord," he found it an extremely happy position to be at last allowed to kick his heels up and have a little time on his own, for to be in a leathern jacket must be a very deplorable plight for as athletic a gentleman as the right hon. Gentleman.

I want to examine what the right hon. Gentleman told us during his Second Reading speech. He started in column 1405, and in column 1410 he said: Clauses 18 to 23 in the Bill are the Clauses relating to charges, and I hope they will be scrupulously and carefully examined in Committee in the light of present and not of past conditions. How are we going to examine scrupulously and carefully those six Clauses under any Time-table Motion?

He went on to say: The Government will certainly listen to everything that is said when this examination takes place. Well, they do not intend to be deafened by the volume of sound.

In column 1411 he says—and this is the third time: We shall listen to the criticism and then make up our minds. Of course, with minds of their limited capacity, they do not want to have too much criticism to listen to. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) interrupted him, and he waved that interruption aside with this sentence: When we come to the detailed Committee stage, I will certainly deal with that point. Then another argument is brought forward, in column 1411: That is the sort of reason why we shall give full consideration in Committee to these changes. In column 1412, he says: I hope that when we come to examine them in Committee we shall examine them in a temperate way in the light of modern conditions. In a temperate way—under the Guillotine. I know that the aristocrats of France, before they went to the Guillotine, used to have mock performances to prepare them for the ceremony. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the way to get a temperate feeling into the minds of one's victims. In the same column he says: I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the House to give careful consideration to Clauses 20 and 21. That is the seventh quotation I have made so far. In column 1413 he says: As for Clause 21, we shall have much opportunity to go into this in detail. Who told him that we were going to have that opportunity? Was he speaking under instructions or was that just a little effort of his own? Now we get down to two other Clauses. In column 1414 he says: I shall be very interested to hear any developments of the argument in regard to traders' rights … and in column 1417: On the Clauses relating to the levy, the method of claiming, who will pay it and how the details will be devised, as well as many other points, will be debated in the Committee stage, and all that will come later … In the same column: Therefore, in Clause1—and we shall have a long debate on Clause 1, because, whatever else we do not discuss at great length, we are bound to discuss that Clause at great length …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1405–24.] He wearied of that description for a while but he came back to it and then, on the Money Resolution, when he was winding up—by which time he could have consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and asked, "What time are we really going to have; shall I be able to fulfil all these pledges that I have given so generously?"—and in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) he says: … we have many days to come on the Committee stage … Of course, "many" is a vague word, but I should hardly have thought that seven, although it is alleged to be the perfect number, was the correct definition of it.

Then—and here is the gem of all—in column 1748 he says: If, in fact, we are right in our contention that in present hands the goodwill has disappeared, how can we possibly expect to get all that goodwill back? This I concede to be a genuine argument against the Bill which, I have no doubt, will rear its head again when we have long and elaborate discussions on the Question 'That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1745–8.] Anyone who knows the procedure of the House will know that the odds are very much against any discussion taking place at all, in present circumstances, on the Motion, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." If we get all the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman promised us in the earlier part of the Committee stage on Clause 1, then, under the Standing Order, the Chairman of Ways and Means could put Clause 1 without discussion. The one guarantee which cannot he given by any Minister who has a feeling of responsibility for redeeming his pledges is the guarantee of a long discussion on that Question.

Of course, what happened was that the Leader of the House took fright at this generosity. If these pledges were to be fulfilled, what chance was there of getting the Bill this Session? This Motion is introduced, not because of the threats which we have uttered, but because of the promises which the right hon. Gentleman gave. At any rate, we all went home on Tuesday night—or, rather, early on Wednesday morning at about what I regard as the appropriate time for the House to rise, 4 o'clock; far better than 2 o'clock but not quite as good as 6 o'clock—feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself, knowing how much he had battered the Bill about in the past, realised that if he were to do justice to himself and to show reasonable concern for the transport industry, then, during the Committee stage of the Bill, we should have to have long discussions and a receptive mind on the part of the Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman would not have given these pledges if he had known that there was to be a Time-table Motion applied. I cannot believe that even so profound an admirer of General Franco as he is would have seen fit to apply Franco's principles to this House after making the kind of promises that he made. There were no conditions attached. I have quoted the whole of the 14 references, and there were no conditions other than a recognition that this was a Bill which demanded the full consideration of the House in Committee. Therefore, judged on its own merits, and out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in charge of the Bill, there is no case for this Motion.

This afternoon the Leader of the House tried to extend the definition which he gave last Thursday of what had been going on which had upset him. It appears now that it was not only the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; it was something else. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what were the other things which have been going on and which have disturbed him?

Mr. Crookshank

You know.

Mr. Ede

The right hon. Gentleman says that I know. Well, I do not. If I did I should not ask. I have only until 9.30. Therefore, why should I start asking questions to which I know the answers? Was it the discussion on the Public Works Loans Bill? That usually goes through fairly quickly; but what happened on that Bill? Every time an Opposition Member sat down, a Government Member stood up. There were exactly as many speeches delivered from those benches as from these. No one can call that obstruction. I object to using that American word "filibustering." There is a good old word used in this House which we know, and which it is the duty of the Chair to deal with—obstruction. There can be no obstruction of a Bill when speeches come one and one from either side of the House.

When I was a young Member of the House, I was told by the Chief Whip of those days on my side that, when we had a Government, it was a bad thing for Government Members to speak, because they could not get the Closure in those days unless there had been three consecutive speeches from the Opposition without a Government intervention. I do not say that it was more than a convention. It may only have been a thing with which the Chief Whips terrified their supporters. It is just as well to have something you can tell them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)

Terrifying.

Mr. Ede

When the right hon. Gentleman looks round with his face unnaturally pale and looking unusually stern—well, Captain Margesson never had such control.

Let us take another Bill which was debated—I am bound to say, at unexpected length: the Colonial Loans Bill. The same thing happened on that—one speech from the Government, a replying speech from this Box, an hon. Member of the Opposition speaking, an hon. Member of the Government side speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round."] It does not matter. One and one; "fair do's," as they say. No one can say there was obstruction there. This Government think that if anybody wants to find out about anything he is, as the right hon. Gentleman said today in moving the Motion, the cause of suspicion. I recollect once sitting on the bench at Epsom on the day after Derby Day, and there was brought in a man who was charged with being a suspected person. When the learned clerk asked him what his plea was, he said, "Not guilty to being suspected. Guilty to being expected." He said, "No sooner did I get out at Tattenham Corner Station than Detective Sergeant Green followed me down the course until he got opposite the grandstand police station and then he said, 'Come inside.'"

I really must implore the right hon. Gentleman to believe this, that he must expect Members sitting on this side of the House to deal adequately, and not less than adequately, with the Measures the Government bring forward. I regret that since the Government have been in office there has been no effort, on important Measures, to find what accommodation is possible.

Last Session the Home Secretary and I sat on opposite sides of the Committee on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill. As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the time, if he had not such a distinguished military record I would believe he was a member of the Society of Friends, because he proceeds in all these matters by the inner light. He did not talk with the brewers; he did not talk with us; he did not talk with anybody, but he was very surprised, after all the antics that he had played on that Bill, from the beginning of the Session right up till the end, during the greater part of which he had forgotten the Bill, that we then wanted to discuss it.

Well, we had the Closure upstairs last Session, and I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal this. We are going to oppose the Iron and Steel Bill; we shall oppose it vigorously; we shall use every legitimate Parliamentary device either to defeat it or to improve it. For giving him that promise, which is not a threat, are we going to have a Guillotine Motion next Monday to deal with the Iron and Steel Bill?

There is a little Education Bill coming along. I really had thought I had squared that. The right hon. Lady is far more easy to deal with than either of these two right hon. Gentlemen, and I had made a suggestion to her about one Clause which I thought she had accepted. It is not there. I am going to oppose that Clause. Shall we have to have a Guillotine in Committee? Let us know exactly where we stand in these matters.

I do not deal with this Motion today on any general grounds at all. I believe the Lord Privy Seal when he says that this Motion gives him pain. Of course, he is worried by the fact that in these days Toryism tries to masquerade as a form of democracy. This explains why the right hon. Gentleman does not feel happy. He is a Conservative of the old school. Those of us who have sat here with him for many years know that, and he probably shares the view of the great grandfather of the present Lord Salisbury when he said, dealing with some of the escapades of the noble father of the present Prime Minister, "Tory democracy is like a carbuncle on the neck."

No Guillotine Motion ever goes through this House—I do not care who proposes it and who opposes it—without Parliamentary democracy suffering. I do not oppose this one on that general ground. I oppose it for the reasons I have given, for the reasons given by the Minister of Transport, on its own particular grounds.

But there is this final thing to say. When this Measure was first adumbrated, there was a strong desire on the part of quite responsible trade unionists to take drastic action against it. We opposed them, because we said, "You will have this Measure debated in Parliament and you must accept the decision that will result from full Parliamentary discussion." That we can no longer say. [Interruption.] I am merely stating facts.

For this reason, I advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). If they were accepted by the Government—and that is, I think, the least they could do to redeem the pledges given by the Minister of Transport—this Motion would still be unsatisfactory, and I should advise them then, no matter whether these Amendments were accepted or not, to go into the Lobby against this quite unacceptable proposal which the Government have submitted to us.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

Although there are many things on which we disagree, I think that everyone in this Chamber will agree with me on this: that this House of Commons of ours will be an immensely poorer place when the subjects cannot enjoy a Ministerial piece of invective such as that to which we have just listened. There is just one other point, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not misunderstand me.

I noticed with great pleasure that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose views on transport I have heard with pleasure on many previous occasions, but which I did not hear on Second Reading, made speeches which so carefully and ably skirted the rules of order that I, for one, was left in no doubt of their views on the points that were raised on Second Reading. I think the hon. Gentlemen opposite understand what I have in mind.

I want to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in the self-denying ordinance which he pronounced upon quotations, although we are discussing a Guillotine Motion. Like him, I have dealt with Guillotine Motions from that Box and from this, and our common vulnerability makes us join in what, I may term, a self-denying ordinance tonight. In fact, there was a happy time when I thought that I was being reasonably clever when I adapted an old joke, following the line of thought of the right hon. Gentlemen, and said that many French aristocrats boasted on the way to the guillotine, had that. I am one of the few people who can boast after being guillotined. But it is so long ago that I tried to make that joke that even that has faded into the dim memories of the past.

I should like to take up one point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made and which was emphasised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). They both said that when the question of a Time-table comes to be considered, the Opposition should have the larger and stronger part in arranging the stages for each day, so that the speeches which were of most importance to the Opposition would get that amount of priority. I should like to say that Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with the broad assumption, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields will do me that justice of admitting that, when a Time-table was imposed on a Bill to which he referred, I immediately suggested that to him as being the proper method of procedure.

We entirely agree with that suggestion and shall do everything that can be done to meet it. I am glad to think that that to some extent, although not entirely, as he explained, meets the point which the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) made in his speech: that is that subjects to which he attached importance will not be crowded out but it can be arranged that they will receive discussion, although of course we are differing as to whether the amount is adequate. I think especially important among the points which many hon. Members opposite have raised, whose importance I fully realise, is the position of employees under the Bill, for which they are very anxious that there should be discussion, and that can be ensured by the method I have suggested.

There is one point on which I must join issue with the right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We cannot accept the basis of carrying on our work on the hyothpesis that has been put to us, that if a Government have a small maority they must for that reason be stultified and not proceed with their task—[Interruption.] I should like to meet the points, because I am trying to argue them reasonably. I think I have heard practically every speech. I missed one or two, but I have heard practically all. I want to meet that point.

We are not today discussing, and we cannot discuss, our views on this Bill; that would be out of order. Therefore, I must ask hon. Members opposite, whatever deductions they draw as to our mental processes or abilities, to believe that we think that this Bill is necessary, as I have tried to explain on innumerable occasions, for the economic improvement of the trade and industry of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They disagree, but it is a dangerous line of thought in this House, which I have tried to avoid in my own estimate of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they were in Government or Opposition, to distrust the strength of opinion and faith with which the other side hold their views. Therefore, it is important to realise that the argument as to the demerits of the Bill, if I may put it that way, for hon. Members opposite is something which they must approach, I suggest, with that reminder in their minds.

There is just one other point which has been mentioned so often that I feel bound to resuscitate it for a moment from the limbo of forgotten facts. That is that several right hon. and hon. Members opposite have mentioned tonight that they had a majority of the votes in the country. They make that claim only by disregarding entirely the seats where our candidates were unopposed. Let them make a reasonable deduction for potential votes against us and they will still find, if they take those seats reasonably into account, that they must grant us a majority of votes as well as of seats.

I wish to deal with the point which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South developed as his main argument on this Motion. He said that my right hon. Friend had approached it in the wrong way by deploying what he called the acreage argument, that is by simply saying that there were in the 1946 Measure 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules and in this 35 Clauses and 3 Schedules; and, said the right hon. Gentleman, one cannot argue from mere numbers of Clauses. He then proceeded—I am not consciously doing him any injustice, I am trying to summarise his argument—to say that there were the following points, and he gave a list, if I am right, of some 16 points to which he attached importance.

Mr. Ede

Fourteen.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

No. The right hon. Gentleman avoided precedent and added another two.

I am quite prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman on the battleground he chooses. It is rather interesting, if he looks back at the Bill, with which I had something to do, that had 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules. I thought I was not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice in thinking that one point's worth of attention per three Clauses or Schedules was a reasonable estimate of the value of the Labour Party's Bill.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but even if one makes that assumption that there is one point per three Clauses or Schedules, that, if my arithmetic is correct, gives us 47 points for that Bill as against—

Mr. H. Morrison

This is really not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. I specifically stated, and he was here and must know, that these points were illustrative only and by no means exhaustive. Therefore he has no right to count them in that way.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If they are not exhaustive, I look forward to their implementation, because I do not think that anyone in the course of the Second Reading debate raised a point which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. Therefore, I thought until he spoke that they were exhaustive.

Mr. Morrison

No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman heard me say that these were illustrations and not intended to be exhaustive. Why does he go on like this?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I go on like that because nobody else ever mentioned any other point, which is a very good reason for considering them exhaustive.

The right hon. Gentleman and I are too old hands in Parliamentary controversy to want to leave the matter at debating points. Let us face the question. The Labour Party Measure in 1946, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, because he wound up the Second Reading debate, included detailed proposals for bringing large sections of all the most important means of inland transport—railways, ports, canals, road transport, passenger and goods—under State control. It included a new and separate and varied series of codes for vesting the assets of those undertakings in new hands. It included codes of compensation. It dealt with properties whose present value, if my recollection is right, is £1,600 million. The present Bill deals with a small though important section of that matter whose value is something between £70 million and £80 million.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

No.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

That is the difference from the point of view of the technical accompaniment of the Bill.

Regarding the other points of it, I was rather surprised to hear that one hon. Member thought there had been no discussion during the Second Reading debate of Clauses 14 and 15 which dealt with the re-organisation of the railways. He must have forgotten the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) which dealt with that point. Although I was slightly hurried in my reply, I did try to deal with what I said quite sincerely at the time were the very interesting points raised by the hon. Gentleman in that regard.

But to compare the two Bills. If one takes it, as one hon. Member said, that there are eight headings here, there were 19 headings in the other Bill. I do not care how we regard it. If we take it from the point of view—and, after all, that is a prima facie guide—of the number of Clauses involved; if we take it with regard to the number of important points that stand out in these Clauses; if we take it by the number of headings which have been found necessary to put in the Bill, we are dealing with a Bill which, not only in the number of Clauses but in the scope and variety of content, was immeasurably greater. That is the answer. That is the test. That is the yardstick by which we should decide whether the provisions made in this Measure are right or not.

We have suggested seven days in Committee. I have taken one yardstick. The right hon. Gentleman, and I make no quarrel about it, took 76 hours, roughly 12 days. I am taking it on the seven-day basis, and it is on that basis I am arguing. But I put it to right hon. and hon. Members of this House that if they compare the scope, content, size and variety of subjects of the two Bills, seven-twelfths is not an ungenerous allowance.

The right hon. Gentleman put forward an argument which surprised me as much for its boldness as its illogicality. He said his Bill, which as I say created the first organisation for the nationalisation of transport that we had seen, was a scrambling Bill and that our Bill was an unscrambling Measure. Then he said that a Bill which is an unscrambling Bill requires ipso facto more time than a corresponding Bill to scramble.

I have never known anything to equal that curious illogical procedure of starting from inaccurate premises, applying to them a process of illogicality never before seen and thereby coming to the wrong conclusion. I pay the right hon. Gentleman the tribute that its boldness equalled its illogicality. But really the right hon. Gentleman—and there is no bolder debater—cannot get away with something like that. He knows very well what is involved when one is scrambling and changing the process that has gone on and developed in the way of private enterprise since the industrial revolution.

Of course, it may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has approached the problem with a levity and irresponsibility that makes it seem easy, but he ought not to have done that. It was very wrong of him. If he did not approach it in that way, then the comparison between the two becomes clear.

I want to deal with a specific matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery made a most interesting suggestion. This is the first point which I should like him to consider. Taking comparisons—and I do not mind whether he goes back far or if he takes those which are in our minds for the years since the war—I do not think that he will find that this seven-day Committee stage compares unfavourably with those of the past. I am sure that he will look at the matter fairly and carefully.

I give him another suggestion. Take the Finance Bill, which is the traditional duty of this House and also the traditional field-day of its Members. Last year's Bill, with 11 days, had the greatest number of days allowed for a Finance Bill since I can remember. Again, using the initial argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when one remembers that the taxation proposals affect the whole body of citizens in the way which he took as his test, I say that that is not an unfair touchstone to apply in this regard.

Mr. C. Davies

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confining himself to what was done between 1945 and today. My recollection is that he and I protested on each of those occasions that the time allotted was too short. I am making the same protest today.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The difference—[Interruption.] Wait for it. My right hon. and learned Friend is in this position. It does lie in his mouth to put forward that argument: it does not lie in the mouth of anyone else on the Benches opposite.

I was not only taking the criterion which had been fixed, but I was asking him to consider as well the Finance Bill where there has not been a Time-table and where there has been general agreement. I was asking him to make that the yardstick. I also wanted him to consider a further point where he and I are in complete agreement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South said that the question of a Bill going upstairs was either irrelevant or an argument for his thesis. I profoundly disagree. It is necessary at times, and I agree that it is also desirable with a technical Bill which wants intimate discussion, to send a Bill upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the brewers?"] The hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he will agree, has a great technical and practical knowledge of the problem involved in that Bill, but I want to put this point, because this is the generally admitted position in regard to that.

It is right and desirable to send a Bill which is of secondary importance, and especially one that has technical aspects, upstairs, but, with a Bill that is of great importance—and, after all, no one who has listened to as many speeches as I have done during these three days of debate can doubt the great importance which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite attach to this Bill—no one can say that that is the sort of Bill that ought to be sent upstairs, where only a microcosm of the House can apply. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that there is some special virtue in applying the Guillotine to a Bill that is sent upstairs, which does not apply to a Bill taken on the Floor of the House, seems to me to be an argument in reverse of the end which he wishes to attain.

Mr. Woodburn

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks and I should like to know from him, in regard to further proceedings on this Bill, whether he will give a pledge on behalf of the Government that some statement will be made indicating what the Government are going to do about transport in Scotland.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am trying to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not see how, on this Motion, I can deal with the Scottish transport side of it. It is not in order to deal with the transport aspect on this Motion, but it does rest with the right hon. Gentleman to secure that that most important part of the Bill, dealing with the consumers' councils for Scotland and Wales, and the special provisions made for their approach to the Minister, should receive discussion, and that can be done.

I was in the middle of dealing with the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made in regard to the Report stage. One thing is perfectly clear. If a Bill is taken upstairs, that is a good reason for a longer Report stage on the Floor of the House, and I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that the 1947 Bill, after being taken upstairs, was given a three-day Report stage on that basis. Therefore, a two-day Report stage for a shorter Bill which has been taken on the Floor of the House has to be considered on its merits.

One hon. Gentleman opposite entertained us by saying why the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, and he made some interesting calculations about 550 people taking part. One has to remember—and again I am asking the House to face the realities of the situation—that those interested in a particular subject in this House usually number something between 20 and 50 on each side.

Mr. D. Jones

If that is the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that there are only 20 hon. Members on each side with technical knowledge—why not send the Bill upstairs?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me; I said "between 20 and 50 on each side of the House," which is too many to go upstairs, because we are limited to 45. I must remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite of two facts. The first is that, apart from this excellent moment in the debate when the winder-up is seeking to make himself heard, there has never been any period in these three days when there have been more than 20 Members on either side in the House who wanted to speak The other point is that we must remember after all the great sound and fury which has taken place that, as far as I know—and I have checked it up to 20 minutes ago—no Amendments have yet been put down to the Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison

The right hon. and learned Gentleman need not worry; the Amendments are coming. But what I want to know is why at this stage and before he knows whether any Amendments or how many are going down, or what their nature will be, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make up his mind so precipitately that a Guillotine is so absolutely necessary?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

For the very good reason and the same reason as the right hon. Gentleman disclosed as being a mental process which had weighed with him. He said, if I may summarise his words, "I studied the climate of opinion in the House." I formed the view—erroneous it may be—that there were going to be prolonged discussions which would occupy—I do not use the word "waste"—a great deal of time and so postpone to the detriment of the country the Government getting their Measure.

Mr. Callaghan rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I really cannot give way again. I have given way quite a lot.

Mr. Callaghan rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am not giving way.

Mr. Callaghan

What point is the right hon. and learned Gentleman making?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Now that the hon. Gentleman is on the Front Bench and now that he has come through the party ballot he must try and keep his temper at this time of night.

Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is quite out of order for an hon. Member to remain standing unless the Minister gives way.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I have asked the House to consider these points on the realities of the situation, and for that reason I ask hon. Members to agree to this Motion.

Question put, "That 'seven' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 276.

Division No. 14.]	AYES	[10.4 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Fell, A.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Burden, F. F. A.	Finlay, Graeme
Alport, C. J. M.	Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Fisher, Nigel
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Campbell, Sir David	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Arbuthnot, John	Carson, Hon. E.	Fort, R.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Cary, Sir Robert	Foster, John
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Channon, H.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Baker, P. A. D.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Baldwin, A. E.	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Banks, Col. C.	Cole, Norman	Gammans, L. D.
Barber, Anthony	Colegate, W. A.	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Barlow, Sir John	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Glyn, Sir Ralph
Baxter, A. B.	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Godber, J. B.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col, A.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Gough, C. F. H.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cranborne, Viscount	Gower, H. R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Graham, Sir Fergus
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Gridley, Sir Arnold
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Crouch, R. F.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Harden, J. R. E.
Birch, Nigel	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Hare, Hon. J. H.
Bishop, F. P.	Davidson, Viscountess	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Black, C. W.	Deedes, W. F.	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Donner, P. W.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Braine, B. R.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Hay, John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Drayson, G. B.	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Drewe, C.	Heald, Sir Lionel
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Heath, Edward
Brooman-White, R. C.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Duthie, W. S.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Billiard, D. C.	Eecles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Erroll, F. J.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Scott, R. Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Shepherd, William
Hollis, M. C.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Marples, A. E.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hope, Lord John	Marshall, Douglas (Bedmin)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Maude, Angus	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Horobin, I. M.	Maudling, R.	Snadden, W. McN.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.	Soames, Capt. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Mellor, Sir John	Speir, R. M.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Molson, A. H. E.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Honckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hurd, A. R.	Mott-Radelyffe, C. E.	Stevens, G. P.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'd'rgh W.)	Nicholls, Harmar	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Storey, S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Studholme, H. G.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Nutting, Anthony	Summers, G. S.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Oakeshott, H. D.	Sutcliffe, H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Odey, G. W.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Kaberry, D.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Keeling, Sir Edward	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Teeling, W.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lambton, Viscount	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Osborne, C.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Partridge, E.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.
Leather, E. H. C.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Tilney, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.		Touche, Sir Gordon
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Turner, H. F. L.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Turton, R. H.
Lindsay, Martin	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Linstead, H. N.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Vane, W. M. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.	Pitman, I. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Powell, J. Enoch	Vosper, D. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Profumo, J. D.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Law, A. R. W.	Raikes, H. V.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Rayner, Brig. R.	Ward, Mist I. (Tynemouth)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Redmayne, M.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Remnant, Hon. P.	Watkinson, H. A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Renton, D. L. M.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
McAdden, S. J.	Robertson, Sir David	While, Baker (Canterbury)
McCallum, Major D.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Robson-Brown, W.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
McKibbin, A. J.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Wills, G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Russell, R. S.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Wood, Hon. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	York, C.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfold, W.)	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and
		Mr. Butcher
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Blackburn, F.	Champion, A. J.
Adams, Richard	Blenkinsop, A.	Chapman, W. D.
Albu, A. H.	Blyton, W. R.	Chetwynd, G. R.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Boardman, H.	Clunie, J.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Coldrick, W.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bowden, H. W.	Collick, P. H.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Bowles, F. G.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Awbery, S. S.	Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Cove, W. G.
Bacon, Mitt Alice	Brockway, A. F.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Baird, J.	Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Crosland, C. A. R.
Balfour, A.	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Crossman, R. H. S.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Cullen, Mrs. A.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Daines, P.
Sense, C. R.	Burke, W. A.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Benn, Wedgwood	Burton, Miss F. E.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Benson, G.	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Beswick, F.	Callaghan, L. J.	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Carmichael, J.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Davies, Harold (Leek)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Keenan, W.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Kenyon, C.	Ross, William
Deer, G,	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Royle, C.
Delargy, H. J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Dodds, N. N.	Kinley, J.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Short, E. W.
Edelman, M.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Lewis, Arthur	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Lindgren, G. S.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Logan, D. G.	Slater, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	MacColl, J. E.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	McGhee, H. G.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Ewart, R.	McInnes, J.	Snow, J. W.
Fernyhough, E.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Sorensen, R. W.
Field, W. J.	McLeavy, F.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Fienburgh, W.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Sparks, J. A.
Finch, H. J.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Steele, T.
Follick, M.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Foot, M. M.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Forman, J. C.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Manuel, A. C.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Gibson, C. W.	Mayhew, C. P.	Swingier, S. T.
Glanville, James	Mellish, R. J.	Sylvester, G. O.
Gooch, E. G.	Mikardo, Ian	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mitchison, G. R.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Monslow, W.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Moody, A. S.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Grey, C. F.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Morley, R.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mort, D. L.	Thurtle, Ernest
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Moyle, A.	Timmons, J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Mulley, F. W.	Tomney, F.
Hamilton, W. W.	Murray, J. D.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Hannan, W.	Nally, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hardy, E. A.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Usborne, H. C.
Hargreaves, A.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Viant, S. P.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Oldfield, W. H.	Wade, D. W.
Hastings, S.	Oliver, G. H.	Wallace, H. W.
Hayman, F. H.	Orbach, M.	Watkins, T. E.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Oswald, T.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)	Padley, W. E.	Weitzman, D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Hobson, C. R.	Palmer, A. M. F.	West, D. G.
Holman, P.	Panned, Charles	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Pargiter, G. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Houghton, Douglas	Parker, J.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)	Paton, J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pearson, A.	Wigg, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Poole, C. C.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Popplewell, E.	Willey, F. T.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Porter, G.	Williams, David (Neath)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Proctor, W. T.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Rankin, John	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)	Reeves, J.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Rhodes, H.	Woodburn, R. Hon. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Richards, R.	Wyatt, W. L.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Yates, V. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Grimond and Mr. Holt.

Amendment proposed: In paragraph 2, leave out "two" and insert "four."—[Mr. C. Davies.]

Question put, "That 'two' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 275.

Division No. 15.]	AYES	[10.15 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Drayson, G. B.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)	Lambert, Hon. G.
Alport, C. J. M.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Lambton, Viscount
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Duthie, W. S.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Arbuthnot, John	Erroll, F. J.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Fell, A.	Leather, E. H. C.
Assheton, R. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Finlay, Graeme	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Fisher, Nigel	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Baker, P. A. D.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lindsay, Martin
Baldwin, A. E.	Fort, R.	Linstead, H. N.
Banks, Col. C.	Foster, John	Llewellyn, D. T.
Barber, Anthony	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Barlow, Sir John	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Baxter, A. B.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Low, A. R. W.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Gammans, L. D.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Godber, J. B.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	McAdden, S. J.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Gough, C. F. H.	McCallum, Major D.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Gower, H. R.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Birch, Nigel	Graham, Sir Fergus	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Bishop, F. P.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Black, C. W.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	McKibbin, A. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harden, J. R. E.	Maclean, Fitzroy
Braine, B. R.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Brooman White, R. C.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Buchan-Hepburn, R. Hon. P. G. T.	Hay, John	Marples, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Heald, Sir Lionel	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Bullus, Wins Commander E. E.	Heath, Edward	Maude, Angus
Burden, F. F. A.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Maudling, R.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Higgs, J. M. C.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Campbell, Sir David	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Mellor, Sir John
Carson, Hon. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Molson, A. H. E.
Cary, Sir Robert	Hirst, Geoffrey	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Channon, H.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Hollis, M. C.	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hope, Lord John	Nicholls, Harmar
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Cole, Norman	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Colegale, W. A.	Horsbin, I. M.	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Nutting, Anthony
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Oakshott, H. D.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Odey, G. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hurd, A. R.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Crouch, R. F.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weslon-super-Mare)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Osborne, C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Partridge, E.
Davidson, Viscountess	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Deedes, W, F.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Perkins, W. R. D.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Peyton, J. W. W.
Donner, P. W.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Kaberry, D.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Keeling, Sir Edward	Pitman, I. J.
Powell, J. Enoch	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Snadden, W. McN.	Turner, H. F. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Soames, Capt. C.	Turton, R. H.
Profumo, J. D.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Raikes, H. V.	Speir, R. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Rayner, Brig. R.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Redmayne, M.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Vosper, D. F.
Remnant, Hon. P.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.	Stevens, G. P.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Robertson, Sir David	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Robson-Brown, W.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Storey, S.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Roper, Sir Harold	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Russell, R. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Studholme, H. G.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Summers, G. S.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Sutcliffe, H.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Scott, R. Donald	Teeling, W.	Wills, G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Shepherd, William	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)	Wood, Hon. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	York, C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Tilney, John	Mr. Butcher and Mr. Drewe.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Adams, Richard	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Albu, A. H.	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hobson, C. R.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Holman, P.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Houghton, Douglas
Awbery, S. S.	Deer, G.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Delargy, H. J.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Baird, J.	Dodds, N. N.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Balfour, A.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Bence, C. R.	Edelman, M.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Benn, Wedgwood	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Benson, G.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Beswick, F.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Jeger, George (Goole)
Bing, G. H. C.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Blackburn, F.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Blenkinsop, A.	Ewart, R.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Blyton, W. R.	Fernyhough, E.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Boardman, H.	Field, W. J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Fienburgh, W.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bowden, H. W.	Finch, H. J.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bowies, F. G.	Follick, M.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Foot, M. M.	Keenan, W.
Brockway, A. F.	Forman, J. C.	Kenyon, C.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Freeman, John (Watford)	King, Dr. H. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Kinley, J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Gaitskll, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Burke, W. A.	Gibson, C. W.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Glanville, James	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Gooch, E. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Callaghan, L. J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Lewis, Arthur
Carmichael, J.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Lindgren, G. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Champion, A. J.	Grey, C. F.	Logan, D. G.
Chapman, W. D.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacColl, J. E.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Griffiths, Rt. Han. James (Llanelly)	McGhee, H. G.
Clunie, J.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	McInnes, J.
Coldrick, W.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Collick, P. H.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	McLeavy, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Cove, W. G.	Hamilton, W. W.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)	Hannan, W.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Crosland, C. A. R.	Hardy, E. A.	Mainwaring, W. H.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Hargreaves, A.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Daines, P.	Hastings, S.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hayman, F. H.	Manuel, A. C.

Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mayhew, C. P.	Rhodes, H.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mellish, R. J.	Richards, R.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mikardo, Ian	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Thurtle, Ernest
Mitchison, G. R.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Timmons, J.
Monslow, W.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Tomney, F.
Moody, A. S.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Turner-Samuels, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Morley, R.	Ross, William	Usborne, H. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Royle, C.	Viant, S. P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Wade, D. W.
Mort, D. L.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Wallace, H. W.
Moyle, A.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Watkins, T. E.
Mulley, F. W.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Murray, J. D.	Short, E. W.	Weitzman, D.
Nally, W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	West, D. G.
Oldfield, W. H.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Oliver, G. H.	Slater, J.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Orbach, M.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Oswald, T.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Padley, W. E.	Snow, J. W.	Wigg, George
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Sorensen, R. W.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Wilkins, W. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.	Sparks, J. A.	Willey, F. T.
Pannell, Charles	Steele, T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Pargiter, G. A.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Parker, J.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Paton, J.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Pearson, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Poole, C. C.	Stross, Dr. Barnett	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Popplewell, E.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Porter, G.	Swingler, S. T.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Sylvester, G. O.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Proctor, W. T.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Wyatt, W. L.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Yates, V. F.
Rankin, John	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Younger, Rt. Hon K.
Reeves, J.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Grimond and Mr. Holt.

Main Question again proposed.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I am not satisfied that the matter has been thoroughly ventilated. I believe that when the Home Secretary was addressing the House, he failed completely to answer the arguments of my right hon. Friend.

We have had during the course of today plenty—

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 276.

Division No. 16.]	AYES	[10.28 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cary, Sir Robert
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Birch, Nigel	Channon, H.
Alport, C. J. M.	Bishop, F. P.	Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Black, C. W.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Boothby, R. J. G.	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Arbuthnot, John	Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Cole, Norman
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Braine, B. R.	Colegate, W. A.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Baker, P. A. D.	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Cooper-Key, E. M.
Baldwin, A. E.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Banks, Col. C.	Brooman-White, R. C.	Cranborne, Viscount
Barber, Anthony	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Barlow, Sir John	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Baxter, A. B.	Bullard, D. G.	Crouch, R. F.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Bullock, Capt. M.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Burden, F. F. A.	Cuthbert, W. N.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Butcher, H. W.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Davidson, Viscountess
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Campbell, Sir David	Deedes, W. F.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Carson, Hon. E.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Donner, P. W.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Raikes, H. V.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Lambton, Viscount	Rayner, Brig. R.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Redmayne, M.
Drayson, G. B.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Renton, D. L. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Leather, E. H. C.	Robertson, Sir David
Duthie, W. S.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Robson Brown, W.
Erroll, F. J.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Fell, A.	Lindsay, Martin	Roper, Sir Harold
Finlay, Graeme	Linstead, H. N.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Fisher, Nigel	Llewellyn, D. T.	Russell, R. S.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fort, R.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Foster, John	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Low, A. R. W.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Scott, R. Donald
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Shepherd, William
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Gammans, L. D.	McAdden, S. J.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Garner-Evans, E. H.	McCallum, Major D.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Glyn, Sir Ralph	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Smithers Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Godber, J. B.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Snadden, W. McN.
Gough, C. F. H.	McKibbin, A. J.	Soames, Capt. C.
Gower, H. R.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Speir, R. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold		Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maclean, Fitzroy	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Ennfield, W.)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Stevens, G. P.
Harden, J. R. E.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Storey, S.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield	Marples, A. E.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Summers, G. S.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Sutcliffe, H.
Hay, John	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Maudling, R.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Teeling, W.
Heath, Edward	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Mellor, Sir John	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Higgs, J. M. C.	Molson, A. H. E.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Thorton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Tilney, John
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nicholls, Harmar	Turner, H. F. L.
Hollis, M. C.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Turton, R. H.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hope, Lord John	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Vane, W. M. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss N. P.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Vosper, D. F.
Horobin, I. M.	Nutting, Anthony	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Oakshott, H. D.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Odey, G. W.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Hurd, A. R.	Orr-Ewing Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Osborne, C.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Partridge, E.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Wills, G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Wood, Hon. R.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Pitman, I. J.	York, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Powell, J. Enoch
Kaberry, D.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Keeling, Sir Edward	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Profumo, J. D.

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Freeman, John (Watford)	Mitchison, G. R.
Adams, Richard	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Monslow, W.
Albu, A. H.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Moody, A. S.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Gibson, C. W.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Glanville, James	Morley, R.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Gooch, E. G.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Grenwood, Authony (Rossendale)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Awbery, S. S.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Mort, D. L.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Moyle, A.
Baird, J.	Grey, C. F.	Mulley, F. W.
Balfour, A.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Murray, J. D.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Nally, W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Bence, C. R.	Grimond, J.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Benn, Wedgwood	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Oldfield, W. H.
Benson, G.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Oliver, G. H.
Beswick, F.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Orbach, M.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hamilton, W. W.	Oswald, T.
Bing, G. H. C.	Hardy, E. A.	Padley, W. E.
Blackburn, A.	Hargreaves, A.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Blenkinsop, A.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Blyton, W. R.	Hastings, S.	Palmer, A. M. F.
Boardman, H.	Hayman, F. H.	Pannell, Charles
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Pargiter, G. A.
Bowden, H. W.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Parker, J.
Bowles, F. G.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paton, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hobson, C. R.	Pearson, A.
Brockway, A. F.	Holman, P.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Poole, C. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Holt, A. F.	Popplewell, E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Houghton, Douglas	Porter, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Burke, W. A.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Proctor, W. T.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rankin, John
Callaghan, L. J.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Reeves, J.
Carmichael, J.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Champion, A. J.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Rhodes, H.
Chapman, W. D.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Richards, R.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Clunie, J.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coldrick, W.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Collick, P. H.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Ross, William
Cove, W. G.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Royle, C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Crosland, C. A. R.	Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Daines, P.	Keenan, W.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Kenyon, C.	Short, E. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Kinley, J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Slater, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Deer, G.	Lewis, Arthur	Snow, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.	Lindgren, G. S.	Sorenson, R. W.
Dodds, N. N.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Driberg, T. E. N.	Logan, D. G.	Sparks, J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	MacColl, J. E.	Steele, T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McGhee, H. G.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Edelman, M.	McInnes, J.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)		Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	McLeavy, F.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Swingler, S. T.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Sylvester, G. O.
Ewart, R.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Field, W. J.	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Fienburgh, W.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Finch, H. J.	Manuel, A. C.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Follick, M.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Foot, M. M.	Mayhew, C. P.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Forman, J. C.	Mellish, R. J.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mikardo, Ian	Thurtle, Ernest

Timmons, J.	Wells, William (Walsall)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Tomney, F.	West, D. G.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Turner-Samuels, M.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, S. Lynn	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Usborne, H. C.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Viant, S. P.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Wade, D. W.	Wigg, George	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wallace, H. W.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.	Wyatt, W. L.
Watkins, T. E.	Wilkins, W. A.	Yates, V. F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)	Willey, F. T.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Weitzman, D.	Williams, David (Neath)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Hannan and Mr. K. Robinson

Main Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 275.

Division No. 17.]	AYES	[10.40 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Alport, C. J. M.	Cuthbert, W. N.	Horobin, I. M.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Davidson, Viscountess	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Arbuthnot, John	Deedes, W. F.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Donner, P. W.	Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Baker, P. A. D.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Hurd, A. R.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Drayson, G. B.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Banks, Col. C.	Drewe, C.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Barber, Anthony	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Barlow, Sir John	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Baxter, A. B.	Duthie, W. S.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Erroll, F. J.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Fell, A.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Finlay, Graeme	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Fisher, Nigel	Kaberry, D.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Fort, R.	Lambert, Hon. G.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Foster, John	Lambton, Viscount
Birch, Nigel	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bishop, F. P.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Black, C. W.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Leather, E. H. C.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gammans, L. D.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Braine, B. R.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Lindsay, Martin
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Godber, J. B.	Linstead, H. N.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Llewellyn, D. T.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Gough, C. F. H.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Gower, H. R.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Bullard, D. G.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Low, A. R. W.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Burden, F. F. A.	Harden, J. R. E.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Butcher, H. W.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	McAdden, S. J.
Campbell, Sir David	Harris, Reader (Heston)	McCallum, Major D.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Carson, Hon. E.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Cary, Sir Robert	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Channon, H.	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	McKibbin, A. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Hay, John	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Maclean, Fitzroy
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Heath, Edward	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Cole, Norman	Henderson, John (Catheart)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Colegate, W. A.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Cranborne, Viscount	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Marples, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hollis, M. C.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Crouch, R. F.	Hope, Lord John	Maude, Angus

Maudling, R.	Rayner, Brig. R.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Redmayne, M.	Summers, G. S.
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Sutcliffe, H.
Mellor, Sir John	Renton, D. L. M.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Molson, A. H. E.	Robertson, Sir David	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Teeling, W.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Robson-Brown, W.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Roper, Sir Harold	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Nicholls, Harmar	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Russell, R. S.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Tilney, John
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Touche, Sir Gordon
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Turner, H. F. L.
Nugent, G. R. H.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Turton, R. H.
Nutting, Anthony	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Oakshott, H. D.	Scott, R. Donald	Vane, W. M. F.
Odey, G. W.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Shepherd, William	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Osborne, C.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Partridge, E.	Snadden, W. McN.	Watkinson, H. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Soames, Capt. C.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Perkins, W. R. D.	Spearman, A. C. M.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Speir, R. M.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Peyton, J. W. W.	Spence, M. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Spens, Sir Patric (Kensington, S.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Pitman, I. J.	Stevens, G. P.	Wills, G.
Powell, J. Enoch	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Wood, Hon. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	York, C.
Profumo, J. D.	Storey, S.
Raikes, H. V.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Adams, Richard	Crosland, C. A. R.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Albu, A. H.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Cullen, Mrs A.	Grimond, J.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Daines, P.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Awbery, S. S.	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hamilton, W. W.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Hannan, W.
Baird, J.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hardy, E. A.
Balfour, A.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hargreaves, A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hastings, S.
Bence, C. R.	Deer, G.	Hayman, F. H.
Benn, Wedgwood	Delargy, H. J.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Benson, G.	Dodds, N. N.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Beswick, F.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hobson, C. R.
Bing, G. H. C.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Holman, P.
Blackburn, F.	Edelman, M.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Blenkinsop, A.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Holt, A. F.
Blyton, W. R.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Houghton, Douglas
Boardman, H.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Bowles, F. G.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Brockway, A. F.	Ewart, R.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fernyhough, E.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Field, W. J.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Fienburgh, W.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Finch, H. J.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Burke, W. A.	Follick, M.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Foot, M. M.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Forman, J. C.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Callaghan, L. J.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Carmichael, J.	Freeman, John (Watford)	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Champion, A. J.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Chapman, W. D.	Gibson, C. W.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Glanville, James	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Clunie, J.	Gooch, E. G.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Coldrick, W.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Keenan, W.
Collick, P. H.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Kenyon, C.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Cove, W. G.	Grey, C. F.	King, Dr. H. M.

Kinley, J.	Pannell, Charles	Sylvester, G. O.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Pargiter, G. A.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Parker, J.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Paton, J.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Lewis, Arthur	Poole, C. C.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Lindgren, G. S.	Popplewell, E.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Porter, G.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Logan, D. G.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
MacColl, J. E.	Proctor, W. T.	Thurtle, Ernest
McGhee, H. G.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Timmons, J.
McInnes, J.	Rankin, John	Tomney, F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Reeves, J.	Turner-Samuels, M.
McLeavy, F.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Usborne, H. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Rhodes, H.	Viant, S. P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Richards, R.	Wade, D. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.	Wallace, H. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Watkins, T. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Weitzman, D.
Manuel, A. C.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Ross, William	Wells, William (Walsall)
Mayhew, C. P.	Royle, C.	West, D. G.
Mellish, R. J.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Mikardo, Ian	Shackleton, E. A. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mitchison, G. R.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Monslow, W.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Moody, A. S.	Short, E. W.	Wigg, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C, A. B.
Morley, R.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wilkins, W. A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Willey, F. T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Williams, David (Neath)
Mort, D. L.	Slater, J.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Moyle, A.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mulley, F. W.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Murray, J. D.	Snow, J. W.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Nally, W.	Sorensen, R. W.	Wilson, Rt. Won. Harold (Huyton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	Sparks, J. A.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Oldfield, W. H.	Steele, T.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Wyatt, W. L.
Orbach, M.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Yates, V. F.
Oswald, T.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Padley, W. E.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Stross, Dr. Barnett	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.
Palmer, A. M. F.	Swingler, S. T.