§ Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 38. leave out subsection (1).
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is really a drafting alteration in that subsection (1), which is taken out of Clause 4, is now to be incorporated as a new subsection (4) of Clause 24. If hon. Members will look at page 34 of the Bill, they will see a subsection (3); immediately after that, this subsection will be inserted.
The purpose of taking it out of its present position and re-inserting it with one very important difference is that we then make it clear that the words apply not only to the creation of companies that the Commission is to retain as Commission-owned companies, but also to the creation of companies to be set up for the purposes of disposal. The one important change to which I just referred is that the time limitation of six months goes—that is, the time in which companies have to be incorporated if they are to be retained. Several hon. Members opposed that time limitation, and we have taken it out.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonWe are much obliged for the clear explanation which 1006 has been given. We think that it is a reasonable Amendment, and the next, I gather, is really consequential on it. I advise my hon. Friends to agree to it forthwith.
§
Lords Amendment made: In page 7, line 8, leave out,
(whether incorporated under subsection (1) of this section or not).
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
Nearly two hours ago I moved a similar Motion, and the Leader of the House responded in not unfriendly terms, indicating that we might go a little further and, I thought from the tone of his voice, that he would then give the proposal sympathetic consideration. The next Amendment on the Paper, that concerned with the six-fifths and the five-fourths, raises a big issue and would take a considerable time in discussion. I wonder, therefore, if the Leader of the House does not agree that this would be a convenient moment to adjourn further consideration.
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Mr. CrookshankIt is true that we have made some progress since the right hon. Gentleman moved a similar Motion an hour and three-quarters ago, but we have not made all that amount of 1007 progress. We have still a good deal of ground to cover with these Lords Amendments, and on the whole I think I should advise the House that we should continue—again, to use the phrase which I used before and which I repeat, if I may—and "see how we get along."—[Interruption.] We have made some progress—I am not complaining of that; but I think that in all the circumstances of the case we might be expected to make a little more.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe Leader of the House really cannot go on using my phrase about "Let us see how we get on." I accepted it before in the graceful spirit in which it was uttered, and I gracefully accepted it, but I cannot go on gracefully accepting it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong and is unwise in his judgment in resisting the Motion, but if it is to be resisted, about which I hope he will have second thoughts, we are in for quite a long debate on the next Amendment; and before we reach that Amendment I should have to advise my hon. Friends, if the Motion is resisted, to divide upon the Question.
§ Mr. WoodburnMay I put to the right hon. Gentleman that Committees are meeting tomorrow morning? From the point of view of the good business of the House, is it not desirable that we should adjourn now and come back fresh to deal with the business in the morning?
§ Mr. W. Nally (Bilston)I am sorry to stand between the House and its further business at this time of night. I must, however bitterly protest, as far as either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench is concerned, against the apparently acceptable procedures that are now taking place. When, at 1.15 in the morning, many people have already done a hard day's work, when many Members of the House are sitting on Committees tomorrow, and when Ministers and leading personalities on this side of the House will be engaged tomorrow morning in important public business, it seems to me quite intolerable that the House should assume it proper to be discussing whether it is right to proceed to discuss Amendments that affect the lives of large numbers of 1008 my constituents and of constituents of every Member now sitting in the Chamber.
It is scandalous, in circumstances in which this House of Commons can determine from day to day, in accordance with the Standing Orders, what time it commences, that having commenced our day's business at 3.30 in the afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past two."]—I said 3.30 in terms of business, apart from Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about morning Committees?"] I am talking about the day's business of the House. We begin our day's work at 3.30 p.m.
The country, irrespective of what might be its interest in the Bill, is not impressed, when at least 100 of the people sitting here have important business to do in the morning, involving Parliamentary matters, by a ping-pong battle between the two Front Benches at 1.20 a.m. to decide whether to go on to discuss matters of vital importance.
My protest is this: at 11.40 a.m. a Minister, for whose policy I have no regard whatsoever although I like him as a personality, is meeting a deputation of senior local authorities, for whom I have some regard. He is meeting them at a fairly early hour. He has some work to do before he meets them. I have no intention of taking part in Divisions in this House today and have not done so since 11.40 p.m. yesterday. I protest against the circumstances, whereby 18 hon. Members, because they have missed their last trains, are going to be hanging about and sleeping in the most disgusting conditions. [Laughter.] This may strike hon. Members opposite as curious and funny.
All I know is that one of the most distinguished working-class Members of this House, whom I had the honour to live with and to know for many years, died last year. One of the reasons he died was the fact that he really believed these all-night Sittings were important and he would never go without a pair. At 3 a.m. today, there' will be at least a dozen or 18 Labour Members of Parliament in this House experiencing the circumstances I have mentioned, but not one hon. Member opposite will have to spend a night in these circumstances. I do not see anything funny about that. 1009 [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I can get home. I live only a quarter of a mile from here.
If the right hon. Gentleman who is sneering so much, had not got a fairly large bank balance derived from his ancestors, he would not—[Interruption.] I object to the House discussing the Motion or this Bill which is before it.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hon. Member doing?"]—One of these days, the people of the country will realise that the House of Commons has great dignity and great powers, and that those of us, who are Members of it, count ourselves honoured, so to be. But, if we are to discuss, at 1.25 a.m., serious matters, then that is not only an insult to us as Members of the House of Commons, but it is an insult to those who send us here.
§ Mr. ProctorI hope that the Government representatives will give earnest consideration to this matter. Some of us were here at 10.30 a.m. yesterday, which is 15 hours since we commenced our legislating duties in the House. We take a serious view of the work in front of us. I believe there is a possibility, through the Lords Amendments, of finding some way of mitigating the evils of this Bill so far as the workers in the transport industry are concerned. I see no hope whatever, if we are going to discuss this matter in the circumstances and in the humour we are bound to get at this time of the morning, after 15 hours of work, of making any impression upon the Government to be reasonable. I hope that the Government will respond and decide that we can adjourn now and take up our labours at a more favourable opportunity.
§ Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)At this time of the night, we come near to what might be called the point of no return. Unless the House adjourns pretty soon, we might just as well stop here for the rest of the night. If we do we obviously shall not discuss these Amendments in the proper manner. The Government would be well advised to consider that before deciding that we should stay here another hour or so. If the Government do not let those of us who can do so go home to get some sleep we may as well stay here well into Wednesday and get on with the job.
§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)I was surprised when I heard the Leader of the House say we were not going to adjourn forthwith. I listened carefully to what he said two hours ago in his most courteous and friendly way. We all assumed that the Government were not intending to detain us for very long. A number of my hon. Friends had hoped they might be home by now. I thought it very reasonable of my right hon. Friend to wait for two hours before moving this Motion again.
But when he invited the Leader of the House to agree to adjourn all we got was a feeble answer that perhaps we had not gone far enough. I am afraid that that sort of thing may go on the whole night. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than frank with the House in this matter. It is no use getting up and talking smoothly and then keeping us here all this time. I ask him to think again about this matter to see if it will pay him to keep us here. He sees the temper of my hon. Friends. They are interested in this Bill and the Lords Amendments, and although they are very tired there are experts on the subject on this side of the House who will certainly wish to make known their point of view.
The right hon. Gentleman may even find that because it is this hour in the morning people tend to speak at greater length than they otherwise would do. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with them. It is often more difficult to speak precisely at 1.30 in the morning. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the amount of time which will be lost on account of prolixity of that kind. I urge him strongly, in the interests of his own popularity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, a Leader of the House, if he is to be successful must be popular with everyone. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was a very popular Leader of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter and let us adjourn now and come back refreshed to our labours.
§ Mr. PagetAre we not to hear something more from the Leader of the House? He is a man who likes to do things the hard way. He gets himself and us, because we are the sufferers, into 1011 one tangle after another. He will not realise that he is in a mess and has to ask for mercy. Instead he goes on. Let him observe what has happened. As he acknowledged, there has been no obstruction at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only quoting the right hon Gentleman.
1.30 a.m.
We have tried to deal with this business expeditiously so far, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider for a moment what it will be like if he gets us obstructing by his insistence that this matter be discussed at an hour when it is not reasonable to have reasonable discussion? There are about 64 Lords Amendments still to be considered and 40 others. If we were for a moment to consider obstructing, that would involve at least 45 hours in the Division Lobbies apart from anything else. Really, will not the right hon. Gentleman show a little sense? He will not get this Bill through by bull-dozing it. He will get it by courtesy of the Opposition. But let him ask for it, because on this occasion the Opposition have the whip hand. Let him treat us with courtesy, because he needs it.
I understand that one of the names of the right hon. Gentleman is "Comfort." Let him give us some comfort now and let him give his own supporters a little comfort, because they will get a little tired of being kept up here night after night by his ineptitude. I tell him again not to go on doing it the hard way because he really is up against something this time.
§ Mr. MellishI am not a betting man but I am willing on this occasion to bet that before the night is out the Leader of the House will lose his temper, as he invariably does on occasions of this kind, and the Opposition will get even madder with him because of it. If he were a good Leader of the House—and I have never thought that he was—he would know that the Amendment which we are coming to discuss now is one of fundamental importance and will take a considerable time if hon. Members on this side of the House want to be obstructive.
Surely the first principle that ought to be considered by this House and by the nation is whether or not there is an immediate urgency for the economy of 1012 the country to have the Bill. If it could be shown, for example, that this Bill had to be the law of the country by, say, July, one could understand the way in which it has been dealt with. But one would have thought that the Leader of the House, consulting with the Minister of Transport—who, although he started out not knowing anything about transport has learned something about it since the introduction of the Bill—would have told him that this Amendment is important to us as an Opposition.
The correct thing would be to give us now the point made by my right hon. Friend, to enable us to talk about it calmly tomorrow and to co-operate with the other side of the House in trying to arrive at the conclusion of this Bill. But if he says, "No, you will talk about this Amendment now," quite apart from what my right hon. Friends will do, I am certain that there are many on this side of the House who will be determined to see to it that it is not we who suffer but the Leader of the House, who will ultimately lose his temper, as he invariably does.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)The House is entitled to hear from the Leader of the House what are the intentions of the Government. On previous occasions when the Standing Order has been suspended and we have had a discussion of this kind, the Minister in charge of the Bill or the Leader of the House has generally told us that it is the intention of the Government to get to a certain point in the Bill or to sit until a certain hour. On this occasion we have had no information whatever from the right hon. Gentleman as to the intentions of the Government.
We knew that it was proposed to suspend the Standing Order. I thought that at 11.30 p.m., when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) quite politely asked the Leader of the House what his intentions were, we should carry on for perhaps an hour or two or perhaps deal with one or two more Lords Amendments. It is not treating hon. Members with respect to leave us in this complete uncertainty. Do the Government wish to keep us here until a certain hour or do they wish to make progress to a certain point? If we can have that information we can adjust ourselves accordingly.
1013 We are trying to take a reasonable, sensible and intelligent interest in these Amendments. One must remember that this is the first opportunity that many hon. Members have had for considering the matter in detail. The Guillotine operated during the Committee stage and the Report stage. If we have an all-night Sitting there is one compensating advantage. At this hour there is almost nothing else for hon. Members to do but to listen to the debate and to take part in it. There are not the other attraction which obtain during the earlier part of the day in the Library and elsewhere. I note that we have now got to the point at which refreshments have to be brought in to enable the Ministers to continue their labours.
I ask the Leader of the House to tell us his intention. Then the House can adjust itself accordingly. Hon. Members can decide whether they want to assist the Government in getting to a certain point or whether they want to stop earlier. Before we divide I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the progress the Government want to make at this Sitting.
§ Mr. CrookshankIf I may speak again by leave of the House, and in view of the very courteous observations which have been made, not only by the right hon. Gentleman but by some of his supporters, the short answer which I would give to the various questions which have been addressed to me is that I did announce that there would be two days for consideration of the Lords Amendments to this Bill. Last Thursday I announced that and it was received without comment. Therefore, it is a question of balancing how much progress is made today or tomorrow. I should have thought, on the whole, that we should make some more progress now.
It is not entirely correct to say that at any given moment the Government always announces how far they are going, or exactly what time they propose to move the Adjournment of the House. It depends on the progress that has been made. I have admitted that we have made some progress, but one has only to look at the Order Paper to see that there is a great deal more of the road to travel. In the present circumstances 1014 I think that we might make some more progress tonight. That is really what I said before but, as the right hon. Gentlemen were good enough to ask me to say something, I have merely repeated, in other words, my previous remarks.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI can speak again only by leave of the House. We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "For what?"] I hope my hon. Friends will wait and let me finish. I was about to add that the speech to which we have just listened is the same as that which we heard 20 minutes ago. There is really nothing in it.
As the Leader of the House has said, let us see how we go and let us make some further progress; but surely he should give us some idea how far he expects to go? We have a right to know. After the first intervention suggesting that we should adjourn our consideration, I made a guess. Many of my hon. Friends had asked me how long I thought we would go. I said that I did not know any more than they did; the Government had not told me; I was not in their confidence. They said, "What do you think?" and I said, "Just from the atmosphere of things"—I thought the Leader of the House was rather nice and that we had done a good amount of work—"I will make a guess at what the Leader of the House has in mind. I think it will be about 1 a.m." We all thought so and I believe he thought so. The atmosphere, however, livened up at about a quarter to one. That was nobody's fault, but if did not help matters. Now we are going backwards.
The Leader of the House keeps on saying that he announced last Thursday that Tuesday and Wednesday of this week were to be devoted to consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. That is perfectly true. I have no objection to his announcing that. He makes up the programme of Government business and he has a perfect right to say that he is giving two days this week for that purpose. But it is completely wrong for him to argue—as he has done—that because I, as acting Leader of the Opposition, did not say anything lost Thursday I agreed that two days this week would do, and that was the end of it.
1015 The Government have their job to do, and they gave two days for this business this week, but we did not give two days and we did not agree to it. We made no comment. We knew we had our job to do and we are doing it now and, whether it takes two, three or four days, we must do our job. I am not threatening anything; I am merely saying that we must do our job. The Leader of the House must get out of his head the thought that, because he stands at that Box on Thursday and announces that two days next week will be devoted to Lords Amendments, he has therefore laid it down that it is to be finished in two days. That is giving him the power of a Guillotine of his own.
1.45 a.m.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stop using this kind of argument. He is getting into the habit of assuming that what he says on Thursday is the end of the thing. This is after all a free Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to say there are to be two days devoted to this business, but he has no right to assume by that that he is going to get his business through in those two days. He had better be thinking out, between today and tomorrow, how many days he is going to give next week to the Transport Bill.
There are important Amendments, and we were rushed on the Committee and Report stages by the Guillotine. We have a right to give them proper consideration and, if he bases his argument on the fact that what he said on Thursday should settle it, I would say that he seems to take too much on himself as Leader of the House. I have no reason to underestimate the importance of the Leader of the House. After all I had a vested interest in the position myself. I would ask him whether we should not now adjourn. Otherwise we must go on to Amendments which are complex, and which will require a substantial time to deal with.
§ Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)The acting Leader of the Opposition has made a reasonable appeal to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, when he came to the Dispatch Box, had nothing new to add to what he had said earlier, as I am quite sure he will agree. It is the right hon. Gentleman's character that when he looks benevolent, we may 1016 be quite sure that he is going to be unreasonable. The arguments put forward from this side of the House are substantial. One of my hon. Friends reminds me that the prolonging of this discussion tonight is one of the best arguments for a Parliament for Wales.
The general public all believe we are a lot of silly people to behave as we are doing tonight, and there are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman where he should be at the present moment. It is not for me to tell him. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he is taking exception to is that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to talk on this Bill, but they desire to do their duty by the House and the country. It is not unreasonable to ask that a Measure of this character shall be properly debated, and it is surely unreasonable and a little discourteous to another place that we should discuss their Amendments at this time in the morning.
We expect from the Leader of the House more interest in the Amendments which come from another place, when they are Amendments of a substantial character, as these are. There is a vast sum of public money involved in the Lords Amendments which are before the House tonight, and it is unreasonable for people to be told in the course of today that while Members were finding it hard to keep awake, and while hon. Members on the other side were talking, the Government had pushed these Amendments through. If the Leader of the House is co-operative now it will, I am sure, be much easier for him to get his way tomorrow. I am in no position to promise on other people's behalf anything to anyone at any time, but I can promise him that I would be co-operative if he would only play the game at this moment.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)The Leader of the House has not made any attempt to reply to the very weighty, convincing and reasonable case put up by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). My right hon. Friend pointed out that there is an important Scottish Measure to be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee today—a very complex Measure dealing with hospital endowments for Scotland, concerning important and abstruse local matters ranging from John-o-Groat's to 1017 Dumfrieshire. I gather from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—
§ Mr. G. ThomasNot gallant.
§ Mr. HughesI wanted to bring some atmosphere of reasonableness into the debate, and I intended that to be complimentary, but my hon. and learned Friend repudiates that.
§ Mr. ThomasNot learned either.
§ Mr. HughesI can only draw this matter to the attention of his constituents, to see if they care about it.
The effect it will have upon Wales to realise that we are devoting this time, at 1.50 a.m., to discussing this elaborate procedure, is nothing to the consternation that will be caused when this is discussed in Scotland. Although there is a comparatively small movement in Wales which is demanding reconsideration of the procedure of this House, it is nothing compared with the demand that there should be devolution for Scotland so that matters appertaining to hospital endowments in Scotland can be properly discussed by hon. Members who are in full possession of their faculties.
There is another and far more weighty consideration which has been in my mind during the progress of this debate. I am
§ wondering whether this debate will be concluded before the Coronation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke of the awful prospect of 45 Sittings of the House and the possibility of 45 all-night Sittings before the Coronation. I want to see the Government Front Bench fit and in good condition to make an impression upon the British public as they appear in the Coronation procession.
§ I have watched with a great deal of perturbation and anxiety the wilting away of the Leader of the House. If this goes on I can imagine that we shall have the Leader of the House in the Coronation procession borne upon a stretcher, or perhaps in an ambulance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Prime Minister?"] I do not wish to drag the Prime Minister in at this stage, but I shudder to think what would happen to the Coronation if the Prime Minister were not able to take part in the procession. I submit that these further weighty considerations should be carefully considered by the Leader of the House and that he should adjourn the proceedings forthwith.
§ Question put, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 237: Noes, 254.
1021| Division No. 133] | AYES | [1.55 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard | Coldrick, W. | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. |
| Albu, A. H. | Collick, P. H. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Glanville, James |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Cove, W. G. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Crosland, C. A. R. | Grey, C. F. |
| Baird, J. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Bartley, P. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Bones, C. R. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Hale, Leslie |
| Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Benson, G. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Beswick, F. | Deer, G. | Hamilton, W. W. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Delargy, H. J. | Hannan, W. |
| Blackburn, F. | Dodds, N. N. | Hargreaves, A. |
| Blenkinsep, A. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hayman, F. H. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) |
| Boardman, H. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Edelman, M. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Holman, P. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Brockway, A. F. | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Hoy, J. H. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Fernyhough, E. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Burke, W. A. | Fienburgh, W. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Finch, H. J. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Follick, M. | Irving, W. J (Wood Green) |
| Carmichael, J. | Foot, M. M. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A | Forman, J. C. | Janner, B. |
| Champion, A. J. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Freeman, John (Watford) | Jeger, George (Goole) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Oswald, T. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Padley, W. E. | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Paget, R. T. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Swingler, S. T. |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Pannell, Charles | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Keenan, W. | Pargiter, G. A. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Parker, J. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Pearson, A. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Peart, T. F. | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Popplewell, E. | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Porter, G. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Lewis, Arthur | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Thornton, E. |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Timmons, J. |
| MacColl, J. E. | Proctor, W. T. | Tomney, F. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Pryde, D. J. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| McGovern, J. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Usborne, H. C. |
| McInnes, J. | Rankin, John | Wallace, H. W. |
| McLeavy, F. | Reeves, J. | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Reid, William (Camlachie) | Weitzman, D. |
| McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. | Rhodes, H. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | West, D. G. |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Manuel, A. C. | Ross, William | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Wigg, George |
| Mason, Roy | Short, E. W. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Mellish, R. J. | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Willey, F. T. |
| Mikardo, Ian | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Monslow, W. | Skeffington, A. M. | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Moody, A. S. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Morley, R. | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Moyle, A. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A |
| Mulley, F. W. | Snow, J. W. | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Sorensen, R. W. | Yates, V. F. |
| Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| O'Brien, T. | Sparks, J. A. | |
| Oliver, G. H. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Orbach, M. | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes. |
| NOES | ||
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Campbell, Sir David | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock) |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Carr, Robert | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Cary, Sir Robert | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Channon, H. | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Godber, J. B. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Gough, C. F. H. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Gower, H. R. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Cole, Norman | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Colegate, W. A. | Grimond, J. |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Banks, Col. C. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Barber, Anthony | Cranborne, Viscount | Harden, J. R. E. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Hare, Hon. J. H. |
| Beach, Maj. Hicks | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Crouch, R. F. | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Davidson, Viscountess | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Deedes, W. F. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Digby, S. Wingfield | Hay, John |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Heald, Sir Lionel |
| Birch, Nigel | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Heath, Edward |
| Bishop, F. P. | Donner, P. W. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) |
| Black, C. W. | Doughty, C. J. A. | Higgs, J. M. C. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Drayson, G. B. | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Erroll, F. J. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Braine, B. R. | Fell, A. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Finlay, Graeme | Holland-Martin, C. J. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Fisher, Nigel | Hollis, M. C. |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. | Holt, A. F. |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Hope, Lord John |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Homsby-Smith, Miss M. P. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Fort, R. | Horobin, I. M. |
| Bullard, D. G. | Foster, John | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence |
| Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) |
| Burden, F. F. A. | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Molson, A. H. E. | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Hutehinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Speir, R. M. |
| Hyde Lt.-Col. H. M. | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Spence, H, R (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Nicholls, Harmar | Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Stevens, G. P. |
| Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Nugent, G. R. H. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Kerr, H. W. | Nutting, Anthony | Storey, S. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Oakshott, H. D | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Lambton, Viscount | Odey, G. W. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Lancaster, Col C. G. | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Summers, G. S. |
| Langford-Holt, J. A | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Teeling, W. |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Osborne, C. | Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Partridge, E. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Lindsay, Martin | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Linstead, H. N. | Perkins, W. R. D. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Tilney, John |
| Low, A. R. W. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Pitman, I. J. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Powell, J. Enoch | Turton, R. H. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| McAdden, S. J. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| McCallum, Major D. | Profumo, J. D. | Vosper, D. F. |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Raikes, Sir Victor | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone) |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Renton, D. L. M. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Maclean, Fitzroy | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Roper, Sir Harold | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Russell, R. S. | Wellwood, W. |
| Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Markham, Major S. F. | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. | Wills, G. |
| Harpies, A. E. | Scott, R. Donald | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Maude, Angus | Shepherd, William | |
| Maudling, R. | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry. |
| Mellor, Sir John | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
§ Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 26, leave out "six-fifths" and to insert "five-fourths."
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning, to insert:
the vehicles included in the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division plus vehicles put into service to replace horse-drawn vehicles plus.I very much regret that we now come to discuss a highly complex, technical Amendment, which involves a great number of figures, at this hour of the morning. It will be difficult for hon. Members at this hour to give full attention to this very important matter of the number of vehicles which the Commission can retain. I think it will be agreed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I should be in order if I discussed at the same time the next Amendment, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and others, to leave out "five-fourths" and to add "seven-fourths."
§ Mr. DaviesDuring the Committee stage the Government agreed that the Commission should be allowed to retain more vehicles than they had originally included in the Bill. I think it would help the House if I gave some brief history of the manner in which the position of the Commission was dealt with, and what was decided upon from the introduction of the White Paper up to the present time.
The House will recall that when the White Paper on policy was laid before us, no provision whatever was made for the Transport Commission to retain any vehicles for the purposes of road haulage hire and reward. Thanks, however, to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), supported by others, the Minister, when introducing his first Bill, provided that the Commission should be able to retain the same number of vehicles as had been taken over by the 1023 Commission from the railway companies when they were nationalised on 1st January, 1948. That is to say, the Commission was to be able to retain the same number of vehicles as it first acquired on the vesting date.
During our subsequent discussions, however, there was strong pressure from this side of the House concerning in particular the failure to include in the Bill any provision for the replacement of the horse-drawn vehicles which were taken over with the motor vehicles. It was then decided to increase by 20 per cent. the number of vehicles which could be retained by the Commission. That is to say, the Commission was to retain the number taken over on 1st January, 1948, plus 20 per cent. There was further discussion as the Bill went through, and this figure is now finally to be raised to 25 per cent.
The figures are confusing. The present figure in the Bill which is now before us is six-fifths, and in the other place an Amendment was moved and accepted which increases it to five-fourths. My mathematics are not very good, but I am told that five-fourths is more than six-fifths. There appears to be no dissension about that. Although there has been this further concession made in the other place, I maintain the number of vehicles which the Commission is to retain is inadequate, and that the latest increase, which amounts, in effect, to only 200 more vehicles, is a mean and pettifogging increase. The number of vehicles which the Commission is able to retain on the present basis, if the Lords Amendment is accepted, is 4,875. We suggest that figure should be increased to seven-fourths, which would be 6,825, an increase of 2,050.
There are four main reasons why we consider the figure suggested by the Government is inadequate. First, it does not provide sufficiently for the natural growth which has taken place, and which would have continued had the Commission not been interfered with. Second, there is inadequate provision for the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles. Third, there is inadequate provision for the substitution of road haulage vehicles where branch lines close down. Fourth, the number of vehicles which the Commission will be left with will be inadequate to enable it to maintain any of 1024 these national, essential services which it is now running or, for that matter, to compete fairly and justly with private enterprise, something which the Minister has, on many occasions in this House, suggested that the Commission should and would be able to do with the number of vehicles with which it was being left.
As to natural growth, the Minister has argued, in Committee and on the Report stage, that this increase of 20 per cent., and now 25 per cent., above 1948, does allow for the natural increase in road haulage vehicles operated by the railways and the companies in which the railways were previously interested. I would point out that over the five years the Commission has been operating, this represents an increase of only four per cent. per annum, whereas before the war Pickfords alone, which was wholly-owned by the railway companies, was increasing its number of vehicles at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum, or five times as much as this natural growth was admitted to be by the Minister.
Clearly, there would have been, in the post-war years, a very substantial increase in the amount of road haulage operated by the railways, with the improvements in the technical operation of the railways in conjunction with road haulage and in the type of vehicles, their capacity, and the general growth in integration and co-ordination. It was a development which was taking place rapidly before the war and it would have taken place more rapidly after the war. To consider 20 per cent. in five years adequate to cover the natural growth is ridiculous. It means that the Commission is in a worse position than it was in 1948.
As to the question of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles, the Commission took over, with the road haulage companies which the railways owned, some 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles. Of these, I believe that about 2,800 have been replaced by motor vehicles, leaving only 200 horse-drawn vehicles. Because these were horse-drawn vehicles on 1st January, 1948, they do not count as vehicles which the Commission is allowed to retain. They are ignored, and the equivalent which has been allowed for, this 5 per cent., is equal to only 200 vehicles. That means that 200 horse-drawn vehicles which the Com- 1025 mission still retains can be replaced by motor vehicles, but 2,800 which they previously took over will be completely ignored.
2.15 a.m.
During the Committee stage, on 9th December, the Minister stated that
the allowance of six-fifths can fairly take account of any road haulage facilities that have been provided. In new cases of the closing of branch lines, it will be open to the Commission in this as in other fields, to go to the licensing authority in the ordinary way. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 331.]It is no use being able to go to the licensing authority to obtain licences to operate road haulage vehicles if the branch lines have been closed down. The Commission must be in a position to know that it will obtain the licences or will have the right to operate vehicles to meet the demand for the carriage of goods over the same distances. There must be provision for the replacement of the rail traffic by road traffic.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is possible that the Commission might not want to run a substitute service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. The Commission have a statutory duty to make ends meet and it may not want to provide alternative facilities which some local bus company may be able to provide. I agree that the probability is that the Commission would, and as I have repeatedly said, the fact that it closed down these branch lines in the interests of economy would give it a strong presumptive right to be granted licences.
§ Mr. DaviesI think that the Minister is under a misapprehension. I am sure he does not consider that a local bus service would run road haulage.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI meant a road haulage service.
§ Mr. DaviesIf the Minister admits that the provisions of this Bill do not make it easy for the Commission to operate road haulage to meet the traffic lost by the closing down of the branch lines, he is putting obstacles in the way of closing down the lines. Nobody can envisage the Commission closing down a branch line, knowing that it will lose the traffic to a private enterprise competitor. The Minister himself admits that the Commission is not being allowed sufficient vehicles to carry on its own business.
1026 Apart from these reasons, the argument has been advanced that because the Commission is able to retain 4,875 vehicles with an unladen capacity of 17,200 tons it will be able to compete with private enterprise. But the tendency has been for the size of vehicles to increase. That limit would mean only 3½ tons per vehicle, which would be a small-size vehicle for heavy haulage or long-distance trunking.
If the Commission decided under the Bill as it stands to replace its smaller vehicles with larger ones, it would mean that it would have to reduce the number of vehicles which it was operating. In fact, if it decided to operate vehicles of 4 tons, it would only have about 4,000 vehicles instead of nearly 5,000, and if all its vehicles were 8 tons unladen capacity, it would be allowed to operate only 2,000 vehicles. How, with that small number of vehicles can the Commission compete, as the Minister suggests it can and wishes it to do, with private enterprise?
The Commission at the present time carries on a large number of different services. It has its Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, with which I shall be dealing in a few moments. It has its trunking and tramping services, and it has its parcels and smalls services, as well as some miscellaneous ones. In the case of the 750 trunk services which are operated as a national network throughout the country, it employs 6,500 vehicles at the present time. In the parcels and smalls service, which serves 13,000 different places, and carries 250,000 consignments a day, it employs about 3,500 vehicles. The Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division employs just over 3,000 vehicles, making a total of 13,000 vehicles with an unladen tonnage of 47,000 tons.
If the Commission requires 13,000 vehicles to carry on those essential services and is to be allowed only just under 5,000 vehicles, it means that not one of those services can continue to carry on; that each one of those—whether Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, the parcels and smalls or the national network of trunk services—will have to be broken up and dissipated, and a worse service will be provided to the users of transport in the country. In fact, in fixing the number of vehicles at so low a figure, the Minister has ignored com- 1027 pletely their point of view, and has considered only the view of those who want to come back into the road haulage industry, who have so frequently been referred to in this House as the friends of the Government.
To deal with that part of our Amendment which concerns Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, we suggest that the Government should exclude that Division from the number of vehicles which the Commission is allowed to retain; that is to say, it should be allowed to retain the 4,000-odd vehicles which we wish to increase to 6,825, and the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division as well. We suggest that for the reason that since nationalisation the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division has been built up from the nucleus of the fleet which was taken over with the railway companies. With its present fleet of 3,091 vehicles it operates a profitable business. It has brought a considerable surplus into the coffers of the Road Haulage Executive, and thereby to the Transport Commission.
This Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division does not enjoy a monopoly. Both here and in the other place Ministers have misled hon. Members by suggesting that Pickfords has a monopoly and that it is to break up that monopoly that the Government are taking this action to restrict the number of vehicles which it can operate. But Pickfords operate a heavy haulage business carrying indivisible loads. The number of vehicles they so operate is only 426. There is considerable competition in the heavy haulage industry. Since the Commission took over in 1948 business in heavy haulage has substantially increased because of the very large amount of development in the electricity industry and the great amount of machinery and equipment which is too large to go by rail and has to be carried in indivisible loads by road.
If this Lords Amendment is carried, however, then for heavy haulage Pickfords will be allowed to retain only 210 vehicles.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he give any figures showing the number of heavy vehicles added to Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division which have 1028 been taken from long-distance road hauliers whose businesses were nationalised?
§ Mr. DaviesI can give the number of vehicles taken over by the Commission. It was 164, and they are now operating 426. That was one of the advantages—
§ Mr. WilsonThe hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question.
§ Mr. DaviesThat was one of the advantages of nationalisation. There were these large number of firms with a few heavy vehicles. They were consolidated into the Pickfords Group for the purpose of carrying the specialised traffic on a national basis. That has proved very profitable indeed and provided considerable economy and a better and cheaper service for the transport user.
The second part of Pickfords special traffic is that of tankers, removals, the carriage of liquid in bulk, and so on. Nobody would suggest that Pickfords has a monopoly in removals. Everyone knows that many of the large furniture firms, the large department stores, and so on, operate removal vans. In the removal business Pickfords is a strong competitor and has no advantage over its competitors.
The other part of the business is that of ordinary load carriers—that is, general haulage of a special type. There is no monopoly because the type of traffic which Pickfords carry is that which was excluded from the 1947 Act. The excluded traffics were indivisible loads, the carriage of liquid in bulk, removals and similar types of specialised traffic. In all of these Pickfords operate, and there are private operators in competition. In spite of that Pickfords has been able to operate profitably and has shown that where there is competition between public and private enterprise public enterprise can in this case succeed.
Because it has succeeded, and because its disappearance would be required if the Bill goes through in its present form, even with the Lords Amendment we are now considering, I ask, why should Pickfords be broken up? I cannot see any justification whatever for causing the disappearance of this very successful section of the Road Haulage Executive.
The Minister has suggested that there should be competition between public and private enterprise and that one of 1029 the purposes of the Bill is to increase competition in the road haulage business. Here is successful competition in existence. Is that the reason why the Minister wants it to come to an end? Is that why he wants to break up, to disintegrate and disrupt the Pickfords service—because it has proved too successful in its competition with private enterprise? I suggest that the Minister should give serious consideration to the question whether the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division should not be excluded from the vehicles to which the Commission is limited under the present arrangements.
2.30 a.m.
I have tried to put before the House some of the reasons why we have put these two Amendments on the Order Paper. They do not go nearly far enough. All we have done is to try to salvage a little more for the Commission, in order to meet the natural growth of traffic and vehicles which has taken place since the Commission came into operation; to replace the horse-drawn vehicles, for which no allowance is made except this miserable increase of 5 per cent.; to make better provision for road haulage in the case of the closing down of branch lines, and to keep in existence the most profitable and successful section of the road haulage industry.
Even if the Minister cannot agree to increase the number of vehicles to seven-fourths he should at least exclude the vehicles of the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division. Even if the number of vehicles is increased from five-fourths to seven-fourths there will still be strong competition between the Road Haulage Executive and private enterprise, because there will be only about 6,800 vehicles in the hands of the Commission which are engaged in road haulage, as against some 84,000 or more vehicles with A licences.
In those circumstances the Minister can surely be assured that private enterprise will have a fair chance to compete. But if, as he suggests, the figure is to be limited to 4,875 vehicles, the Commission will not be able to compete on a fair basis, because it will have to disrupt each of its existing services. Not one of its services will be able to maintain a national network, and it will, therefore, be unable to operate as economically and efficiently as it now does.
§ Mr. WoodburnThe questions raised here deal first with Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, and, secondly, the number of vehicles that will be allowed to the Commission for the carrying on of business. This raises the further question of how far the Commission will be able to carry on services which may not be carried on at all if they are left purely to private enterprise. Everyone recognises that it would be quite unreasonable to expect private enterprise to run services in areas where profits cannot be made. Nobody expects it to do so; that is the duty of the public service, and it must always be so. There are great areas in Scotland where it is quite impossible to guarantee that any profit can be made if a private service is run, and that applies to rural areas in other parts of the country.
It therefore follows that if the matter is to be left entirely to private enterprise the first result will be that the service will be reduced to an extent which will enable it to make ends meet, in which case the rural areas will be more isolated than they are today and, instead of people being encouraged to live there and to populate areas that must be populated in the Highlands, they will drift more and more to the towns, where they can have the facilities of transport. The second result will be that where that transport continues to run the fares will be increased to such an extent as to handicap what remains of rural life.
One of the problems of getting small industries into the rural areas and into isolated places is that of providing transport at reasonable rates to take their goods to the big cities and the markets. The road transport authority in Scotland was already in a position to provide what was almost a flat rate—to give people sending goods 40 miles in the Highlands the same rates as those sending goods the 40 miles from Edinburgh to Glasgow. That is a tremendous advantage to people living in the isolated areas, and it was to be made possible simply because the great bulk of traffic in the big areas made it possible for the authority to bear the cost of the traffic in the isolated areas without difficulty.
The Minister has admitted the special transport needs of Scotland. The general conclusion come to by everyone in Scotland who has examined this matter is that 1031 the road services in Scotland cannot be left to chance. If these vehicles are suddenly put on the market and sold to private enterprise, that is largely leaving it to chance. There is no guarantee that these vehicles will not be sold to people who will operate them outside Scotland, and certainly outside the rural and isolated areas.
No explanation has yet been given by the Minister, and I have almost wearied myself raising this matter in the House, as to how, under the Bill, the services for these areas are to be maintained. I hope that in the course of his reply the right hon. Gentleman will give some idea how the Bill will work with regard to maintaining or providing services in these very difficult areas, of which Scotland has perhaps more than its share.
Is the Commission to have any responsibility for providing the services? The Minister told us a few minutes ago that it was the duty of the Commission to make ends meet. Therefore it would be quite unreasonable to say to the Commission that it must take all the uneconomic services, and that the economic services can be taken by the private road hauliers. That would be contrary to the duty of the Commission, and I am sure the Minister would not enforce such a position on it. If the Commission is to have any duty at all to provide services in Scotland, it must clearly have a unit that can provide some sort of balance. It must, therefore, be run as a public service. If the Commission is to have such a duty, it must have enough vehicles left to it to do that job.
If the vehicles are to be spread all over Britain, or even if a large number of them are to be taken from the nucleus of the Commission's vehicles to keep the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division alive, the very fact that the Pickfords Division is to be kept to any reasonable strength means that the Commission will have no vehicles for any other road transport purpose. Scotland and other rural areas will have all their transport taken away to the profitable areas, and the Commission, trying to make ends meet, will have to concentrate its transport on the Pickfords Division to show a vast profit.
There seems to be an argument for leaving the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division entirely outside the calculation 1032 of the five-fourths. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully in order to leave the Commission enough vehicles to carry on some of these public services. I happened to make a journey during the Easter Recess, and I was astonished to find the number of Pick-ford vehicles built specially for carrying Army tanks on the roads. I do not know whether the Minister has inquired about the number of vehicles run by Pickfords for purely Government and Service purposes. This is not really road transport at all in the normal commercial sense.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydAlthough it would not be true of all vehicles, a number were actually acquired from other undertakings and have now been repainted with the very effective sign of the "Special Traffic (Pickfords) Division." Pickfords is not the Pickfords that we used to know, as I shall explain later on.
§ Mr. WoodburnThe point I am making is that these vehicles seem to be specially built for carrying Centurion tanks. The manufacture of Centurion tanks and their delivery all over the country is not a matter for normal commerce; it is a matter for the Army authorities to transport their tanks, and even to get their tanks from commercial firms. If the Army are using such vehicles to transport tanks, and are using Pickfords, it seems to me wrong to bring those vehicles into a calculation in discussions on handing over road transport to private enterprise. These vehicles should be taken out of that calculation altogether.
The other point I wish to raise concerns the question of horse-drawn vehicles. In Scotland there were three firms which ran collection and delivery services very largely in conjunction with the railways. These three firms ran collection and delivery services and served the railways almost like a monopoly. Two of these firms were not owned by the railways. They were naturally taken over by the Commission afterwards, and at the time they were taken over the transport was largely horse-drawn vehicles. But the Commission have changed over to motor vehicles. It seems that if the proportion of vehicles to be retained remains as at present proposed it will not be sufficient to provide in Scotland even the vehicles that were required before the Bill to run the collection and delivery of railway traffic.
1033 This will be a tragedy from another point of view. As I explained in earlier speeches, the road transport authority plus the railways have built up a very interesting collection and delivery service of a co-ordinated kind that was not possible under private enterprise with a number of different firms. The Minister seemed to show some sympathy when I explained this first, especially in the case of centres like Leith Central Station and Glasgow, where these services had been built up most effectively and were operating with great success.
While the right hon. Gentleman showed some sympathy in his earlier reply, I have since been unable to discover whether there is to be any continuation of these services, even the central depôts. Even supposing private enterprise were doing the job, is there to be a continuation of these centralised exchange depots in order to avoid the overlapping and duplication that takes place when these depots do not exist? Leith Central Station is a great building at one of the most important centres of the dock area of Leith, and it has been almost entirely transformed into a suitable depot, with a loading bank and other facilities for such traffic.
I should like the Minister to say what will happen to these depots if, by the rejection of our Amendment, the services are to be reduced? Are they to be entirely scrapped? Is the collection and delivery service to be lost? Is there to be a reversion to the rather haphazard system which existed before the war? Are the railways to be able to acquire sufficient vehicles to replace the service that was previously performed by these private enterprise firms with horse-drawn vehicles? It is quite definite that the number of vehicles permitted to the railways would certainly not be able to perform the delivery and collection service.
All I am at the moment anxious about is to be satisfied that so far as transport arrangements are concerned when the Bill comes into force there will not be a complete dislocation, and that great stretches of Scotland will not be left without a proper service. So far as I know no one is satisfied in Scotland about the likely service. We may be mistaken because the Minister has promised to set up a centralised authority to co-ordinate some parts of transport, but it seems defective 1034 as it is not to co-ordinate road transport. Is it to be capable of seeing that there are enough vehicles to do the job in Scotland and to see that outlying rural areas are not deprived of a service without which their life will be further depleted, and the prospect of rehabilitation of our country set back many years?
§ 2.45 a.m.
Mr. BraithwaiteMr. Deputy-Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must first thank hon. Members for the warmth of their welcome, and perhaps also acknowledge the appreciative references made earlier in the evening to some remarks which I made at Nottingham last week.
The topic before us in this Amendment has been the subject of a great deal of discussion during the earlier stages of the Bill. If I may refresh the memories of hon. Members, they will recall that the six-fifths ratio was put in to allow for what we called natural growth of these services. The debate which took place then impressed us considerably with the desirability of some increase. If I may say so to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), no one made a greater impact upon us than did he by the representations he made on that occasion. That was why, in another place, my right hon. Friend thought it was a good thing to increase this ratio to five-fourths, a substantial increase in the overall limit of tonnage to be made over to companies under the control of the B.T.C. by making this increase to them.
§ Mr. CallaghanDoes the hon. Gentleman really wish to adhere to the word "substantial"?
Mr. BraithwaiteIf I did not think the word "substantial" appropriate I should not have uttered it. This is not the More-cambe Conference, where words are withdrawn on their utterance; it has been carefully worked out.
§ Mr. LindgrenNo wonder the Minister would not allow the hon. Gentleman to speak before.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesMay I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether even at this time in the morning reference to the More-cambe Conference is in order?
Mr. BraithwaiteI do not think anyone went to the length of saying that the Morecambe Conference was in order.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything which was out of order. He said this was not the Morecambe Conference: it certainly is not.
§ Mr. PagetMay we take it that we can discuss the Morecambe Conference and the Conservative Conference, which are wide and interesting subjects?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI have no doubt that they are, but it would not be in order to discuss them.
Mr. BraithwaiteI was asked whether I adhered to the word "substantial." Of course I do, and I carefully considered it before using that phrase. I think an increase from six-fifths to five-fourths can be not unreasonably described as substantial.
§ Mr. BeswickCould the Parliamentary Secretary give us the arithmetic of this? My hon. Friend has given the pre-war average increase of the old railway companies and the road transport vehicles, and the annual increase under the Transport Commission. Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how he relates the six-fifths or the later five-fourths to the previous annual increase?
Mr. BraithwaiteI hope I shall not provoke anybody if I say that I think it is a little early for that sort of interruption. What I am trying to do at the moment is to justify the word "substantial." The Opposition are endeavouring to do still better for the Commission. We are now dealing with the Special Traffics Division; and the Amendment which would have raised the ratio to seven-fourths was not selected, although an oblique reference has been made to it. It comes into the general picture, but may I say that the five-fourths' ratio was intended, for good or for ill, to deal with the problem of the horse-drawn vehicles and that concerned with the necessity for a proper service for Scotland. The change of six-fifths to five-fourths, I think, represents a substantial increase.
On the basis of information supplied by the Commission, and quoted by the Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill, the additional allowances for Pickfords alone would have meant 14,700 tons unladen weight, and would have 1036 brought the total tonnage which the Commission could make over under this Clause to 235 per cent. of the tonnage owned by the former railway and canal companies. I do not think this is a party point; I do not think it is controversial, but it is very difficult to compute, however benevolent one's intentions, just what the allowances for the former horse-vehicles should be; to what they should amount. I do not think they could be accurately assessed, for there are a great many uncertain factors.
There is the difference in the radius of operation of a horse-drawn vehicle and its motor substitute, and there is also another matter. I put it to the right hon. Member for East Stirling that one of the factors difficult of assessment is the radius of operation to which I have just referred, and the other is the extent to which horse-drawn vehicles were given up and not replaced at all. The House should then remember there is another factor.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesIs the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggesting that 200 motor vehicles can do the same amount of work as the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles taken over, and provide the special service to Scotland to which he has referred? He is allowing the Commission 200 extra motor vehicles. Does he say that they can do the same work and the extra service as well?
§ Mr. DaviesIt is a hopeless case.
Mr. BraithwaiteI now have some figures, which were not in my possession when I rose to reply originally, which bear on this matter not inconsiderably. The pre-nationalisation tonnage was 13,700—that is, railway-controlled vehicles. The six-fifths ratio would make that into 16,500—
§ Mr. DaviesUnladen weight?
Mr. BraithwaiteUnladen weight—and five-fourths brings it up to 17,200, which is an increase—I am doing the calculation rapidly but I think I am right—of 3,500 as compared with the pre-nationalisation figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. WoodburnI do not want to be ungracious and not to acknowledge that the Government made some attempt to meet my point. Can the hon. Gentleman 1037 clear up this point? Presumably some of these vehicles are being given to meet the peculiar situation in Scotland, where there were so many horse-drawn vehicles. If the vehicles are all handed over to the Commission, do they get the vehicles that they were previously to get plus X vehicles that they are to get for the horse-drawn vehicles that we discussed? Is there any guarantee, however, that the Commission will not use all these vehicles outwith Scotland and not use any of them for the service in Scotland?
§ Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth)The Parliamentary Secretary appears to want an adjournment while he settles the matter with his right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Hale rose—
Mr. BraithwaiteI gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, who put to me a point of considerable substance. I was trying to assure myself, through my right hon. Friend, that I was giving the correct reply rather than give one hurriedly which might not be accurate. On these occasions, whatever the hour, one ought to do these things thoroughly.
§ Mr. RobensThe hon. Gentleman should know his subject before he comes to the Box.
Mr. BraithwaiteI do not think that the right hon. Member was invariably perfect when dealing with any question that was put to him at any hour on these various matters. My chief recollection of his inaccuracy was his forecast that there would be a million unemployed before last Christmas.
§ Mr. RobensDid you guarantee that there would not be?
§ Mr. RobensOr before you go out of office? Do you guaranteee that?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. I do not guarantee anything.
Mr. BraithwaitePerhaps I may now reply to the intervention of the right hon. Member for East Stirling. It would be the duty of the Disposal Board to see that that does not happen.
§ Mr. RobensWhat, the million unemployed?
Mr. BraithwaiteThe right hon. Member must contain himself. I am trying to deal with a serious point on the duty of the Disposal Board to look after this matter.
I now return to the main issue which we are discussing. The House should remember that a substantial part, although by no means the whole, of the tonnage operated by the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, as it is called, represents tonnage previously owned by the former railway-controlled company, which was then called Pickfords.
§ Mr. Callaghan rose—
Mr. BraithwaiteLet me finish. I will give way with pleasure if the hon. Member disagrees with the point I am making. This Amendment, if accepted, would therefore mean the duplication of this tonnage in calculating the overall limit.
§ 3.0 a.m.
§ Mr. CallaghanI should like to know under which provision of the Bill the Disposal Board will have the authority to prevent any particular unit being sold in order not to denude Scotland? As I see it, the only power they have is under Clause 3 (7). Is the hon. Member on a good point here?
Mr. BraithwaiteIt is the duty of the Board, and I think we have said this often enough, to see that the general disposal of vehicles is done on a geographical basis. It has been made clear during our discussions that they must not denude Scotland or anywhere else of a reasonable service.
I must get back to the point put by the right hon. Member for East Stirling because this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is on the question of the ratio.
§ Mr. PopplewellI suggest the Parliamentary Secretary has made a very important statement, in which we are extremely interested. He has mentioned that the disposal would be on a geographical basis. Would he say under what terms and what provision of the Bill this comes? This is an extremely interesting point to Scotland and Yorkshire and Northumberland, where there are vast tracts of country.
Mr. BraithwaitePerhaps, in endeavouring to answer the point, I put it 1039 crudely or badly. The Disposal Board has on it a representative of the Commission, whose duty it is to try and see these things, which have been foreshadowed, do not happen.
§ Mr. CallaghanObviously, there is something here which the Parliamentary Secretary is cognisant of, but which we are not. The only condition I know which exists in the Bill about the duties of the Disposal Board which is remotely concerned with this, is that the Board shall not give their approval to the acceptance of a tender unless they are satisfied the price is a reasonable one and that where any difference arises between the Commission and the Board, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Minister shall give his direction.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydAt my hon. Friend's own suggestion, I rise to make this matter abundantly plain. My hon. Friend had in mind, quite rightly, that it will be the task of the Commission and the Disposal Board to divide up the units in a manner that will sell. Naturally, they are anxious these units shall sell. As I explained, it was not possible to arrange for geographical sales, either in Scotland or anywhere else.
We have every reason to think the people who served Scotland before, and their natural successors, will be ready to continue to serve it in future. As to how the Commission will use their very large fleet of nearly 5,000 vehicles in the retained companies is not for me to say. We should be much criticised if we imposed on the Commission conditions to carry out their services in any one part of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Callaghan rose—
§ Mr. HaleOn a point of order. Who is addressing the House and who is interrupting who? Who is my hon. Friend interrupting? How many times can these speeches be resumed by different hon. Members?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe Parliamentary Secretary was speaking. We are not in Committee, and I think we should carry on.
Mr. BraithwaiteI suggested that my right hon. Friend should get up as it was obvious that what I was saying was not going very well with hon. Gentlemen 1040 opposite. I was trying, obviously somewhat incompetently, to say that I felt that the fears of the right hon. Gentleman would not be realised because of the presence on the Disposal Board of a member of the Commission, and what was said by my right hon. Friend bears that out.
This Amendment excludes from the calculation the Special Traffics or Pickfords Division. We feel that the increase, be it substantial or otherwise, is sufficient to cover this problem of the horse-drawn vehicles and I was trying to say when I got involved in the geographical matter that an increase to seven-fourths would involve a duplication both in the case of Pickfords and the horse-drawn vehicles. If the House would like the figure, I understand that the horse-drawn substitutes would amount to a duplication of some 700 tons, and we felt that increase to five-fourths was adequate.
§ Mr. E. FletcherWould the hon. Gentleman explain the figure of 700 tons? He said he had some difficulty in explaining to the House precisely what was the calculation to be made for horse-drawn vehicles. But he has not explained what allowance he has made in this change from six-fifths to five-fourths for the horse-drawn vehicles.
Mr. BraithwaiteI do not know if the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I was speaking earlier about the difficulty of making a computation about the horse-drawn vehicles—
§ Mr. E. FletcherI appreciate the difficulty we are all in, but we rely on the Minister to explain the basis on which he makes the calculation. We are trying to follow it, though it is a very difficult arithmetical calculation to make. But the Minister is trying to justify the change in the ratio from six-fifths to five-fourths and to explain why that change is sufficient to compensate for the loss of these horse-drawn vehicles. All he has said so far is that it is difficult for him to explain. But if he cannot explain it how can we be expected to understand?
Mr. BraithwaiteI think I put that clearly enough, and when the hon. Member reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find what I said—
§ Mr. Fletcher rose—
1041Mr. BraithwaiteMay I answer this point? What I said earlier was that there was difficulty in making this computation about the horse-drawn vehicles and what should be their replacement for two reasons. One was the difference between the horses and the motor vehicles in radius of operation. The second point was that quite a number of horse-drawn vehicles had been given up and not replaced. The figure of 700 tons we obtained from the Commission. I think it fair to add that the Commission did not think they were receiving adequate replacement, and we feel that in increasing the ratio from six-fifths to five-fourths we are dealing with these points.
§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)I regret that we have to press this point at this time in the morning, but when this Bill was being discussed previously I was not able to attend because of illness. I want to say how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) for raising the point with regard to these centralised stations. I am particularly interested in the station at Leith, which is in my constituency and which has been closed down as a railway passenger station and converted into a traffic base for parcels.
All the Parliamentary Secretary has said tonight—even if he said it badly it was confirmed by the Minister—is that this will not be settled on a geographical basis. Because of that, we have no assurance that even when a settlement is arrived at, Scotland, including Leith, will get its fair share of this traffic. The Parliamentary Secretary went even further than that, because he said that neither the present Commission nor its successors would be bound by anything that he said.
Can the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, even at this late stage, what is to be the future of this important traffic base and what is the intention of the Traffic Commission to deal with it? It calls for an answer. It was raised by my right hon. Friend some time ago. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) in correspondence with the Minister and with the Traffic Commission, so I do not think it is being unfair to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a reply tonight with regard to the future of this important base at Leith Central Station.
§ Mr. G. WilsonI do not want to prolong this debate more than a few moments since, as one hon. Member opposite remarked a while ago, we have had all this argument before and that, if I may say so with respect, applies especially to the arguments that we have heard put forward for Scotland. Perhaps it does not come well from me, as one who comes from the far west, to go into details with regard to what may be happening with Scottish Road Services, but I would remark in passing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said that he thought the activities of British Road Services in Scotland were interesting but what some people find most interesting is that British Road Services are not paying very well. That is one reason why some people think—
§ Mr. PopplewellThey are paying at the moment.
§ Mr. Wilson—that this small section of the road transport industry might be hived off from the much bigger section of the railways which form a majority of the Transport Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The point I want to refer to was made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—
§ Mr. PopplewellThe hon. Gentleman has said that at the moment the British Road Services are not paying. We hear such a lot of these general statements, so would he produce proof, because the information we have is that they are paying at the moment.
§ Mr. WilsonWe cannot repeat the debates that have been going on here for some months, but the point has been made repeatedly that the services which were taken over and nationalised and became part of British Road Services were paying better than the British Road Services as a whole are now doing.
3.15 a.m.
I know that that statement has been challenged by hon. Members opposite, but we really cannot repeat the debates we had on Second Reading, the Committee stage, on Report stage and on Third Reading. I wanted to mention Pickfords Special Division. I have not got the advantage of having all the figures in front of me but, speaking from memory, I think that the broad picture is that there was a very substantial Pick-fords in existence—
§ Mr. MitchisonOn a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. Member would cease addressing the white rabbit or whatever it is on the bench near him and speak in this direction. He is inaudible.
§ Mr. WilsonI am addressing the Chair and not the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I wish to point out that there was a substantial Pickfords in existence before the war. My impression is that the growth of Pickfords under nationalisation has not been a natural growth arising from commercial competition, but has largely come about because portions of nationalised long-distance road haulage businesses which were compulsorily acquired were added to Pickfords. That is not a natural commercial growth. If I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Enfield, East it was that Pickfords had grown up in competition with others as a successful commercial enterprise. I suggest that that is not so and that the growth has largely been as a result of parts hived off the nationalised haulage businesses and added to Pickfords.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesThe hon. Gentleman will recall that the natural growth of 20 per cent. to which I referred was the 20 per cent. per annum by which Pickfords had grown. I said that the present increase allowed for in the Amendment of only 4 per cent. per annum over the five years was inadequate compared with the 20 per cent. On the other argument of the hon. Gentleman about the absorption by Pickfords of certain vehicles taken over from other undertakings, that only shows the advantage of nationalisation. Here was a consolidation of vehicles taken over into a concern which is now operating very profitably.
§ Mr. WilsonThe hon. Gentleman is confusing two points. On the one hand, the number of motor vehicles in Pickfords was growing before the war because horsedrawn vehicles were decreasing at an increasing rate as more and more motor vehicles were being employed. That was happening all over the country. But one cannot expect the increase in the number of motor vehicles at the expense of horsedrawn vehicles to continue at the same rate when there are no more horsedrawn vehicles left. They are already reduced to about 200 so that the per- 1044 centage of horsedrawn vehicles taken over each year must be getting less and less, and one cannot expect a continuation of such growth of motor vehicles at the same rate as before the war because that growth was largely at the expense of horsedrawn vehicles. On the other hand, Pickfords has grown because vehicles from compulsorily acquired businesses were added to it.
§ Mr. D. JonesNobody would deny that the special vehicles in the service taken over by the Road Haulage Executive were added to the Pickfords Special Division to make it efficient. The fact that in the organisation of their business the Executive put all their special vehicles into one Division in order to use them most efficiently all over the country is a complete vindication of the socialising of long-distance road haulage and a perfectly intelligent thing to do.
§ Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)Socialist logic.
§ Mr. JonesIf the hon. Member wants to interrupt why does he not get on his feet? He should shut up.
§ Mr. LindgrenHe cannot stand up.
§ Mr. JonesI was glad that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has been able to get off his chest one of the speeches he has been carting about the House for the last couple of days. We are also glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has plucked up sufficient courage to make a speech after his disappointment at not being able to attend the dinner of a transport association last night. There is not the slightest doubt that if he had attended that dinner he would have made the same kind of silly speech that he made at Nottingham a week ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for En-field, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has been arguing the case for an increased percentage of vehicles to be allocated to the British Transport Commission. He made out a good case. Earlier, the Minister of Transport called to his aid something which had been said by Mr. A. G. Marsden. Will the Minister now accept what that same gentleman said when he was speaking to the Institute of Transport on 9th April? He said that it was proposed to allow the British Transport Commission to increase their 1045 1947 road transport strength by 25 per cent. and that such an increase seemed to be inadequate. He said that the railways were increasing their road transport strength before the war at something like 20 per cent. per annum, and had not the war intervened they would have had a much more stronger ancillary road transport section by now. If the Minister places so much reliance upon the statements of Mr. A. G. Marsden, the transport expert of Unilever Limited, why is he not now prepared to accept his advice in regard to this Amendment?
The right hon. Gentleman also said that if the Commission closed down a branch line they might not desire to continue to run passenger vehicles. We are now discussing not passenger vehicles but the substitution of road service vehicles for goods trains on branch lines, and if the Minister believes that the Commission might not want to take over the road haulage of those closed branch lines he would obviously believe anything. It must be fairly clear, even to him, with his elementary knowledge of transport, that when the same firm handle traffic from the point at which it is loaded on to the railway to the point where it is delivered to the consumer it must increase the efficiency of the service.
Does he really believe that the Commission will not want to take over that
§ road haulage? Does he really believe that they will be carrying out their obligations under the 1947 Act if they do not provide services for the traders in those areas where branch lines are being closed down? How are they to provide those services if the Minister does not give them the vehicles?
§ Already it has been pointed out to the Minister that the number of vehicles allowed to be retained by the Transport Commission, if they continue to operate the Pickford's Special Traffic Division in the way they are operating it now, will not allow them sufficient vehicles to do their own work and to carry out the substitution service which, unquestionably, the public of this country will expect them to carry out. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the Minister should pay attention to Mr. Marsden's advice and increase substantially the number of vehicles allowed to the Transport Commission.
§ Mr. Buchan-Hepburnrose 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, 249; Noes, 234.
1049| Division No. 134.] | AYES | [3.26 a.m. |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Bullard, D. G. | Fort, R. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. | Foster, John |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Burden, F. F. A | Fraser, Han Hugh (Stone) |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Campbell, Sir David | Fyfe, Fit. Hon. Sir David Maxwell |
| Arbuthnot, John | Carr, Robert | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Cary, Sir Robert | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Channon, H. | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Godber, J. B. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Cole, Norman | Gough, C. F. H. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Colegate, W. A. | Gower, H. R. |
| Barber, Anthony | Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Baxter, A. B. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Grimond, J. |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Cranborne, Viscount | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Crouch, R. F. | Harden, J. R. E. |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Hare, Hon. J. H. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Davidson, Viscountess | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) |
| Birch, Nigel | Deedes, W. F. | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Digby, S. Wingfield | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Black, C. W. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Donaldson, Comdr. C. E, McA | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) |
| Bowen, E. R. | Donner, P. W. | Hay, John |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A | Doughty, C. J. A. | Heald, Sir Lionel |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Drayson, G. B. | Heath, Edward |
| Braine, B. R. | Erroll, F. J. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Fell, A. | Higgs, J. M. C. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Finlay, Graeme | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Fisher, Nigel | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Hint, Geoffrey |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Holland-Martin, C. J. |
| Hellis, M. C. | Markham, Major S. F. | Scott, R. Donald |
| Holt, A. F. | Marlowe, A A. H. | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Hope, Lord John | Marples, A. E. | Shepherd, William |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Horobin, I. M. | Maude, Angus | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Howard, Greville (St. Ives) | Maudling, R. | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Mellor, Sir John | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Molson, A. H. E. | Speir, R. M. |
| Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Nicholls, Harmar | Stevens, G. P. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | Storey, S. |
| Kaberry, D. | Nugent, G. R. H. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Nutting, Anthony | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Oakshott, H. D. | Summers, G. S. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Odey, G. W. | Taylor,Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Lambton, Viscount | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Lambton, Viscount | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Lancaster, Col, C. G. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Osborne, C. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Partridge, E. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) | ||
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Lindsay, Martin | Perkins, W. R. D. | Tilney, John |
| Linstead, H. N. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Peyton, J. W. W. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Turton, R. H. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Low, A. R. W. | Pitman, I. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Powell, J. Enoch | Vosper, D. F. | |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | WaKefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Profumo, J. D. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| McAdden, S. J. | Raikes, Sir Victor | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| McCallum, Major D. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Renton, D. L. M. | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Maclay. Rt. Hon. John | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Wellwood, W. |
| Maclean, Fitzroy | Roper, Sir Harold | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Russell, R. S. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrie) | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. | |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard | Chetwynd, G. R. | Freeman, John (Watford) |
| Albu, A. H. | Coldrick, W. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Collick, P. H. | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Gibson, C. W. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Cove, W. G. | Glanville, James |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Baird, J. | Crosland, C. A. R. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Grey, C. F. |
| Bartley, P. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Bence, C. R. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Benn, Wedgwood | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Benson, G. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hale, Leslie |
| Beswick, F. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Deer, G. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Blackburn, F. | Delargy, H. J. | Hamilton, W. W. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Dodds, N. N. | Hannan, W. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hargreaves, A. |
| Boardman, H. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hayman, F. H. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) |
| Bowden, H. W. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) |
| Bowles, F. G. | Edelman, M. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Holman, P. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Hoy, J. H. |
| Burke, W. A. | Fernyhough, E. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Fienburgh, W. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Finch, H. J. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Carmichael, J. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) |
| Cattle, Mrs. B. A. | Foot, M. M. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Champion, A. J. | Forman, J. C. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Chapman, W. D. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Oliver, G. H. | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Janner, B. | Orbach, M. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Oswald, T. | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Padley, W. E. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Paget, R. T. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Swingler, S. T. |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Pannell, Charles | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Pargiter, G. A. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Parker, J. | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Peart, T. F. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Keenan, W. | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Popplewell, E. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Porter, G. | Thornton, E. |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Timmons, J. |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Tomney, F. |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Proctor, W. T. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Pryde, D. J. | Usborne, H. C. |
| Lewis, Arthur | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Rankin, John | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| MacCoIl, J. E. | Reeves, J. | Weitzman, D. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Mclnnes, J. | Rhodes, H. | West, D. G. |
| McLeavy, F. | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. H. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | White, Mrs. Eirone (E. Flint) |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Ross, William | Wigg, George |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E) | Royle, C. | Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Manuel, A. C. | Short, E. W. | Willey, F. T. |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Mason, Roy | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Mellish, R. J. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierkty Hill) | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Skeffington, A. M. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Monslow, W. | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Moody, A. S. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Morley, R. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | Yales, V. F. |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Snow, J. W. | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Moyle, A. | Sorensen, R. W. | |
| Mulley, F. W. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Sparks, J. A. | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Taylor. |
| Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."
1050§ The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 250.
1053| Division No. 135.] | AYES | [3.36 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard | Champion, A. J. | Foot, M. M. |
| Albu, A. H. | Chapman, W. D. | Forman, J. C. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Chetwynd, G. R. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Coldrick, W. | Freeman, John (Watford) |
| Awbory, S. S. | Collick, P. H. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. |
| Baird, J. | Cove, W. G. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Glanville, James |
| Bartley, P. | Crosland, C. A. R. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Bence, C. R. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Grey, C. F. |
| Benson, G. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Beswick, F. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Blackburn, F. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hale, Leslie |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Deer, G. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Delargy, H. J. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Boardman, H. | Dedds, N. N. | Hamilton, W. W. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hannan, W. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hargreaves, A. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Hayman, F. H. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) |
| Brockway, A. F. | Edelman, M. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Rogis) |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. Goorge (Belper) | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Holman, P. |
| Burke, W. A. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Fernyhough, E. | Hoy, J. H. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Fienburgh, W. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Carmichael, J. | Finch, H. J. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Mulley, F. W. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P. J. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Oliver, G. H. | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Orbach, M. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Janner, B. | Oswald, T. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Padley, W. E. | Swingler, S. T. |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Paget, R. T. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Pannell, Charles | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Pargiter, G. A. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Parker, J. | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Peart, T. F. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Thornton, E. |
| Keenan, W. | Popplewell, E. | Timmons, J. |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Porter, G. | Tomney, F. |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | ||
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Proctor, W. T. | Usborne, H. C. |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Pryde, D. J. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Rankin, John | Weitzman, D. |
| Lewis, Arthur | Reeves, J. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | West, D. G. |
| MacColl, J. E. | Rhodes, H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| McGhee, H. G. | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Mclnnes, J. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| McLeavy, F. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Wigg, George |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Ross, William | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Royle, C. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Willey, F. T. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Short, E. W. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Manuel A. C. | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Williams, W.T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Mason, Roy | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Skeffington, A. M. | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Mellish, R. J. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Mikardo, Ian | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Yates, V. F. |
| Monslow, W. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Moody, A. S. | Snow, J. W. | |
| Morley, R. | Sorensen, R. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace. |
| Moyle, A. | Sparks, J. A. | |
| NOES | ||
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Burden, F. F. A. | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Campbell, Sir David | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Carr, Robert | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Cary, Sir Robert | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Channon, H. | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Godber, J. B. |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Gough, C. F. H. |
| Baldock, Lt.Cmdr. J. M. | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Gower, H. R. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Cole, Norman | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Banks, Col. C. | Colegate, W. A. | Grimond, J. |
| Barber, Anthony | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) |
| Baxter, A. B. | Cranborne, Viscount | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Harden, J. R. E. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Crouch, R. F. | Hare, Hon. J. H. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Davidson, Viscountess | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Deedes, W. F. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Birch, Nigel | Digby, S. Wingfield | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) |
| Black, C. W. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA | Hay, John |
| Bossom, A. C. | Donner, P. W. | Heald, Sir Lionel |
| Bowen, E. R. | Doughty, C. J. A. | Heath, Edward |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Drayson, G. B. | Henderson, John (Catheart) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Erroll, F. J. | Higgs, J. M. C. |
| Braine, B. R. | Fell, A. | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Finlay, Graeme | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Fisher, Nigel | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Holland-Martin, C. J. |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Hollis, M. C. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Fort, R. | Holt, A. F. |
| Bullard, D. G. | Foster, John | Hope, Lord John |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Horobin, I. M. | Maude, Angus | Smilhers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Maudling, R. | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Mellor, Sir John | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Molson, A. H. E. | Speir, R. M. |
| Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.) | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Nicholls, Harmar | Stevens, G. P. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Stewart, Henderson (File, E.) |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Noble, Cmdr, A. H. | Storey, S. |
| Kaberry, D. | Nugent, G. R. H. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Nutting, Anthony | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Oakshott, H. D. | Summers, G. S. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Odey, G. W. | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Lambton, Viscount | O'Neil, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Thomas, RI. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Osborne, G. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Pelersfield) | Partridge, E. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Peake, Rt. Hon, O. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N |
| Lindsay, Martin | Perkins, W. R. D. | Tilney, John |
| Linstead, H. N. | Peto, Brig, G. H. M. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Peyton, J. W. W. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Pickthorn, K. W. W. | Turton, R. H. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Low, A. R. W. | Powell, J. Enoch | Vaughan Morgan, J. K. |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Price Henry (Lewsham, W.) | Vosper, D. F. |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. D.L. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Prifumo, J. D. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| McAdden, S. J. | Raikes, Sir Victor | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| McCallum, Major D. | Rayner, Brig, R. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Rees-Davies, W. R | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Renton, D. L. M. | Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Maclay, RI. Hon. John | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Maclean, Fitzroy | Roper, Sir Harold | Wellwood, W. |
| Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Russell, R. S. | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Wills, G. |
| Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Markham, Major S. F. | Scott, R. Donald | |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Marples, A. E. | Shepherd, William | Mr. Studbolme and Major Conant. |
§ 3.45 a.m.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next one to leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert:
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—are designed to give expression to various undertakings that I gave in the House. It had been represented to the Government 1054 that in the view of the Commission—and I know that this is also the view of many right hon. and hon. Members opposite and of some also on the Government side—neither the sum total of vehicles that could be retained by the Commission, nor the flexibility of the-various types of vehicle within that sum total, were as fair as they should be.does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively.
- (a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;
- (b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads;
- (c) other motor vehicles,
The Commission made strong representations to me on this matter and as a result of the discussion here and in another place, certain changes have been made. As was said—
§ Mr. CallaghanWhich Amendment is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am moving now, of course, only the Amendment dealing with the "six-fifths" and the "five-fourths." [Interruption.] I do not know how the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) likes to conduct 1055 business. If the two Amendments are related, no harm is done by pointing out that fact. I am quite aware that I cannot move the second Amendment at the same time. It seemed desirable to point that out as it might otherwise be difficult for some hon. Members who have not followed the Bill with the same care and consideration that we have had to do.
The Commission made certain representations to me in regard to the second of the two Amendments, and when I get to it I will, of course, give full publicity to what the Commission have told me on the matter—
§ Mr. CallaghanHear, hear.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd—as I was asked to do by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who has some knowledge of what the Commission's views are on that subject. On the issue of deleting "six-fifths" and inserting "five-fourths," however, we feel that we have gone a considerable way to meet the feeling both of the House and of the Commission.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) told the story of the various stages whereby the Government had advanced, as he put it, seeing the light better and better as they went along the road, until now they arrived at an Amendment to give five-fourths of the former railway and canal-owned companies' vehicles. I would not say that the hon. Gentleman's history was strictly accurate; it was a little picturesque, but, broadly, I accept it as a fair statement of the stages whereby the Government have moved to the present position.
On the question of the number of vehicles that the Commission should be allowed to retain, which now culminates in the five-fourths, no less than 42 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT were spoken in the Committee stage and a further 20 columns on the Report stage.
§ Mr. CallaghanWith some effect.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydWith some effect. That shows the value of Parliament. Also, there were many discussions in another place and a number of columns spoken there, with some effect, which shows also the value of the other place.
§ Mr. CallaghanHear, hear.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI should not accept the view of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that this increase to five-fourths is unfair in regard to the Pickfords Special Division. It is easy to get a little unrealistic about this excellent body and to paint it as if it was the same business as the old Hay's Wharf Cartage Company (Pickfords and Carter Paterson). It is nothing of the sort. On the one hand, it does not operate the parcels services and, on the other hand, it has taken over many specialised vehicles from other haulage concerns, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) pointed out. We feel that the expansion in this field is fairly taken care of, as in other fields, by the proposed new figure. So, we propose, instead of the Commission being allowed to retain six-fifths of the vehicles which the former railway and canal companies owned before nationalisation, they should be allowed to retain five-fourths. We regard the undertaking that the Commission should have six-fifths of the vehicles as sufficient to take account of normal growth, and, also, for those vehicles which were in companies in which the railways had less than a controlling interest.
I was impressed by the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about horse-drawn vehicles. We have made a further concession and we regard the five-fourths figure as being fair in respect of horse-drawn vehicles. I know that various hon. Members think there should be a larger figure than this conceded in return for horse-drawn vehicles which possibly have had mechanised vehicles substituted for them. It is difficult to arrive at a fair figure of what would be a proper approximation. The best evidence I have is that on 1st January, 1948, the railway-controlled companies had 3,868 horse-drawn vehicles, 300 of which they transferred to the Railway Executive.
These, of course, will not fall for disposal now; nor will their substitutes. They disposed of a further 2,800 and 700 of them are still with the Road Haulage Executive. How many of those which were disposed of, were never strictly replaced or were disposed of because of redundancy, I do not know. I suspect quite a number. We must also remember the very limited range of these horse-drawn vehicles, which has always been 1057 taken into account by the licensing authority when granting a B or A licence in substitution for a horse-drawn vehicle. We feel the figure of 200 vehicles, or 700 tons further, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, is quite substantial and does take account of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope the House will accept this as an illustration of the Government's desire to do the fair thing by the Commission. I do not expect the Opposition, who dislike the Bill, to regard the dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive with anything but indignation. But, I hope they recognise that, by having first agreed they should have some vehicles and then having arrived at the present figure by successive stages, the Government has shown they are not only ready to listen to Parliamentary arguments in both Houses, but are anxious to act fairly over the British Transport Commission, which has a great many practical difficulties to face, of which I am fully conscious myself.
§ Mr. CallaghanI shall be the last to deny that the Minister has certainly listened to the arguments advanced in the 62 columns of HANSARD in which we have discussed this matter. He has been consistently regular in his attendance in the House and has set an example to us all by the way he has attended to this Bill. Equally, I will admit that the pressure placed upon him has yielded some dividends to common sense and to the common interest.
If I may recapitulate, the original conception of the Government was that the Commission should retain absolutely no vehicles at all. They were moved from the position by overwhelming criticism to the point where they said the Commission could keep the equivalent of what they had on 1st January, 1948. After further argument they were moved to the position when they admitted there had been some growth and they would be able to keep six-fifths of what they had. Finally, we have reached the position where in another place they agreed that the Commission should be allowed to keep five-fourths of what they had.
I am told that that is greater than six-fifths by 5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 4 per cent."] I think it is 5 per cent. I think the Minister calculates in these percentages in order to hide the paucity of what he is doing. I am not 1058 surprised that he speaks in these fractions about which there can be great argument, even among the distinguished mathematicians on both sides of the House instead of referring to the tonnage figures which the Commission are to be allowed to keep.
I feel I am moving among more familiar figures when I say that out of a total of about 40,000 vehicles the Minister's concession is 200 vehicles. Or, as an alternative way of putting it, out of a total tonnage of vehicles which the Commission now runs of about 200,000—I am not attempting to be very precise—the Minister is allowing them to keep another 700 tons. If the figures are substantially wrong I will correct them.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give a wrong impression to hon. Members who have not followed the whole of the discussion. That is true about the last extension to the vehicles which now number 4,875 with a maximum unladen weight of 17,000 tons. But as he himself said, when the plan was originally devised there were to be no vehicles allowed at all.
§ Mr. CallaghanThe point I was coming to was that made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the 700 tons. He said that out of a total of 200,000 tons that was a substantial concession. When I challenged him he resumed his seat for consultation purposes and then came back to aver it even more dogmatically and sternly, saying that 700 tons out of 200,000 was a substantial concession. If that is a substantial concession heaven save us from a niggardly concession from this Government.
4 a.m.
These concessions are very little and the Commission are dissatisfied with what is allowed to them. They do not regard it as equitable. In deciding why we should have that fraction the Minister said he wanted to give the Commission something for natural growth in accordance with other commercial enterprises since 1st January. He has allowed an expansion of about 4 per cent. per annum whereas before nationalisation Pickfords were expanding at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum.
I ask the Minister why, when there was such a substantial annual growth, and 1059 with reference to the arguments I addressed to him earlier on another Amendment that road haulage units were growing larger steadily every year, and the myth of the little men now exists only in the week-end country speeches of Tory Members? The Parliamentary Secretary is an adept at drawing on his imagination rather than relying on the facts, but in this case he knows that Pickfords is growing and has been growing at far faster rate than the Minister has given them credit for. I ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—who has not exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment—to tell us what consideration has led them to arrive at the conclusion that the natural growth of Pickfords has slowed down to the point where it is only one-fifth of what it was before nationalisation.
This is a serious point to which the Minister has not yet given us an answer. The next point which he has not answered was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in connection with horse-drawn vehicles. The Minister tells us that he has made a concession in respect of horse-drawn vehicles that have been converted to motor vehicles, but for the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles that existed previously, he is only giving the Commission 200 motor vehicles. Why? Is it his view that 200 motor vehicles are the equivalent of 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles? This is not the view of those engaged in the industry, and we would like to know why he takes this harsh view of the substitution that he has made.
What is the Minister afraid of? Is he really afraid of having properly-run public enterprise in competition with private enterprise? Is this really the reason why in every case he is acting so harshly towards the Commission as not to permit them to run services that they ought to be able to run? The case we have made, time after time, is that the Commission, whatever else may be said against it, has originated first-rate trunk services up and down the roads of our country. It is the estimate of the Commission itself that it would need about double the tonnage of vehicles that the Minister is proposing to give it if it is to maintain those trunk services.
1060 We know it is the wish of traders that those trunk services should be retained. They have made that view clear. We know, too, that under this Bill there is no guarantee that those trunk services will be retained by any of the private traders who are coming into the business. Why is the Minister frightened to allow the Transport Commission to operate the trunk services that it has built up, to which it is indebted to no one and which it has built up out of its own enterprise? It did not take over anyone's business to do it. They were only in a skeleton and rudimentary form before it took them over. They are its child.
Why does the Minister wish to strangle it when it is showing signs of growing into a lusty and efficient child? The Minister is being most unfair to the Commission in this matter. He is being worse than that: he is interfering with, and worsening, the services that the traders will get in trunk services because he knows that he can give no guarantee that they will be continued. And all for the insane desire he seems to have that all costs the Commission must be stripped of its road haulage services.
While we recognise that the Minister has made some small concession here—the Parliamentary Secretary may stick to the word "substantial" if he wishes, but I do not regard 700 tons as being in any way a substantial concession—he has made no case at all for acting in this harsh way. I can only suggest that as the 62 columns of HANSARD have been successful in getting the Minister to change his mind once, twice, and I think three or four times now, perhaps we shall have the opportunity, by means of further discussion this morning, of making him change it yet once again.
The Member has shown by the constant changes he has made not only that he is convinced by the arguments but that his case was bad to start with. And his case, despite these small concessions is still a bad one. He knows that it is a bad one. The Patronage Secretary had to rescue the Parliamentary Secretary in the last debate by moving the Closure before we could develop the case to the full. I warned the Patronage Secretary then that he would not get away with it and that we should develop the case on this Amendment instead, and that is what we must continue to 1061 do. We cannot permit the public interest to be sacrificed in this Bill by the Minister where for no reason at all he is breaking up an efficient unit built up by the Commission.
For those reasons we spurn with contempt this concession. We regard it as valueless to meet the problem with which the Minister is confronting the Commission by his own actions. He is making their task more difficult and we shall most certainly in due course register our view that a concession of this nature is entirely nugatory and hardly worth the paper it is written on.
§ Mr. HargreavesThe Minister indicated a basis of computation when considering this question of horse-drawn vehicles which have been turned over to motor vehicles and which were represented in this fractional increase to be allowed to the Commission. I wish to suggest what I believe is a fairly reasonable basis of computation. The Minister said that the addition of 200 vehicles or 700 tons unladen weight was reasonable to represent 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles.
I put it to the Minister that a reasonable basis of computation—it is not an average but less than average—is one of 25 cwts. unladen weight. That unladen weight might actually go up to 2½ tons. On the basis of 25 cwts. for those 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles we get an unladen weight of 3,750 tons. The Minister suggests that for that unladen weight of 3,750 tons a reasonable computation—a fair addition for this fraction which covers not only horse-drawn vehicles but also what the Minister referred to as a natural growth over a term of years—is now 700 tons or 200 vehicles. I suggest that it is utterly ridiculous to take that as any basis of comparison with the figures of horse-drawn vehicles in existence at that time and is an attempt to compute their value in terms of motor vehicles in existence at the present time.
In our discussions it has not yet been made clear what this fractional increase means to the Commission in terms of service vehicles. I would remind the House that one of the first principles of this Bill is that the Commission shall continue to provide transport services on the roads of this country. The terms of this Lords Amendment are that the Commission shall continue those services 1062 during the time at which sales are proceeding. The Commission are entitled to retain one vehicle in every nine. They have to maintain their present services even when the means of maintaining them have been taken from them by the sale of their vehicles.
For a few moments I want to refer to the services which the Commission are enjoined to continue. There are the contract services, upon which 3,000 vehicles of the Commission are now being used, and those services provide special facilities to firms who are identified with the vehicles. There is the Pickfords Service, representing 3,500 vehicles; the parcels service, representing 3,750 vehicles, and the long-distance haulage service—apart from that of the special Pickfords Service—representing 6,500 vehicles.
The Minister proposes that the major services now carried on by the Commission shall be continued during the process of sale. If they are permitted to retain only one vehicle out of every nine, and the basis of computation with regard to horse-drawn vehicles and the growth of the service since nationalisation is to be represented by the 200 vehicles allowed to the Commission, the purpose mentioned in the opening phrases of the Bill is impossible of achievement.
I have made a suggestion for computing the relative values in terms of tonnage and vehicles as applied to the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles to which the Minister himself referred. I ask the Minister if a fair basis of computation of tonnage and of motor vehicles now is not a reasonable one, and therefore this fractional increase does not by any means enable the Commission to carry out the work laid upon them by the Bill.
§ 4.15 a.m.
§ Mr. HaleI am glad that at least a few people are here to observe the present scene. Here we are discussing a major Amendment to a Bill which occupied 62 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the Committee and Report stages, in spite of the Guillotine, and it was a very honest Opposition effort to devote so much limited time on this Bill, especially when the closure was moved after every few columns. We are told that this is a reasonable time to debate the Amendments. We cannot know the reason, but we are expected to debate 1063 them while a dozen Tory Members are lying full length on the benches taking no interest whatever. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anyone for going to sleep. I am blaming the Leader of the House who compels people to reach such a state. Even the gallant brigade commander does not appreciate he is supposed to be on "night ops"—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman might come to the Motion before the House.
§ Mr. HaleThis is a point of great importance to which I am entitled to devote a little time and to which I am entitled to demand some attention from hon. Members in the House. I would, with respect, make a second point. I am well within the rules of order if I call attention to a breach of order which is taking place on the benches opposite—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to that, certainly hon. Members who are reclining on the benches ought to be sitting up.
§ Mr. HaleNow that we have been restored to a state of order in which we would wish to carry on the debate, may I refer to the Amendment? I am glad that at last an English Member is able to deal with this matter, because I am speaking on behalf of Lancashire. Lavish compliments have been extended to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). When I saw another Scotsman, representing an English constituency, the Patronage Secretary, moving the closure after two such Scottish speeches, I am beginning to wonder if Lancashire will receive any of these vehicles at all.
I hoped that in the course of the debate on the first Amendment to the Lords Amendment we should have received some utterances from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some information, which would have enabled us to view the position with a little more confidence. We all welcomed the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The sudden breaking of his monastic silence after so many hours made us feel that he was about to bring us information. I do not personally agree with the 1064 Minister's view that to let the Parliamentary Secretary speak more would do any harm. I do not think he did any harm at all, and when he sat down we were in precisely the same position.
There was a very remarkable interlude in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, which led to some confusion. I hope that he will not think for a moment that I am using an ungracious metaphor, because I have a great respect for him. We have all heard of the folly of the man who has a dog and then barks himself, but the occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary called on the Minister to intervene in his own speech to answer an interruption in his own speech must be the first occasion on record on which a dog has gone on strike and asked his master to do the barking.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made perhaps the best justification of the action of the Leader of the House that could be made, because, notwithstanding the advanced hour, he made one of the ablest speeches on the previous Amendment, every word of which is relevant to this Amendment, and every word of which was directed to this Amendment. It was one of the ablest speeches and one of the most clear speeches I have heard for many a long day. I thought when I heard it that it was an unanswerable speech, and it has remained without answer.
There is one point on which I want to seek guidance so as to understand this matter. In an earlier discussion we were told that there was power in the provisions of subsection (7) for them to adopt a method, if they wished, of proposing reserved prices on vehicles to be disposed of, and we had some discussion then on the possibility of rings being formed and offers made for vehicles at fixed prices after the Bill was available. Now we are to have the most repressive overall limit applied to the number of vehicles to be retained by the British Transport Commission. What happens to the vehicles for which no decent offer is made? They cannot be used by the Commission. They will not be sold to the bidder because the rings are operating and they have not reached the reserved price. They will be left in some carpark, dumped away to rust. What is to 1065 happen to them? They will be sold as chattels, presumably.
§ Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott (Ripon)Send them to Oldham.
§ Mr. HaleI shall say a few words about Oldham in a minute if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait a moment. I shall be happy to show how this Clause will affect the town I have the honour to represent.
What is to happen to these vehicles? The plain fact is, the Minister does not know. I paid a reasonably lavish tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for the observations he made, but one thing we must condemn him about, the one thing that seemed unforgivably naïve—if he will forgive the word—was when he turned to the Minister and asked him to explain something he did not understand about the Bill. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman was the last person on earth to ask to explain the Bill to anybody, and the last person on earth to be expected to understand it.
We have tried to find out and are entitled to know whether there is to be an area company for Lancashire. If so, who decides what the allocation of vehicles is to be for Lancashire, and who decides the nature of the allocation and the sort of semi-State company that is to operate to cover that great industrial area? The Parliamentary Secretary said, "At this stage that is all I can say." Well, this is the last stage. It is the finish now, unless they take the sensible course of withdrawing the Bill even at this stage, but the Parliamentary Secretary says, "I cannot give you any more information. You will have to advance with us into the darkness hoping that light will come when the Bill has been passed."
I should like to make one other point on the question of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles and the railways. It was the invariable practice of the traffic courts, if an application came from the railway company to replace a horse-drawn vehicle by a haulage vehicle, to grant the licence. Indeed, so invariable was it that I am not even sure whether objections could be lodged. I am perfectly certain that objections were never heard. That was the invariable practice, because it was so obviously in the pub- 1066 lic interest. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East for the information that in the period we are discussing there were in use 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles that required to be replaced.
Let us look at the matter in terms of Oldham. I never like to operate the parish pump with the regularity of my Scottish hon. Friends, but I must point out that Oldham made the greatest contribution to our balance of payments—
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt sent the Prime Minister to Parliament.
§ Mr. HaleI believe the right hon. Gentleman crossed the Floor of the House while he was the Member for Oldham, but he did not return to the city.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThere is no necessity for me to point out, as the hon. Member must know, that this is out of order.
§ Mr. HaleWith great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am trying to apply this in terms of my duty to my constituency and the effect this will have on my constituency. If I did not take Oldham I could take a fictitious town, but I think it important that I should put this most serious point. It is only six miles from Manchester, the great marketing centre for the textile industry, and years ago all these goods used to go by rail. Gradually the whole picture changed. I hazard the guess that today all the passenger traffic goes by bus, which is much more convenient. At present we have a railway service which calls at seven or eight stations, two in Manchester and three separate stations in the borough of Oldham itself—Werneth. Clegg Street and Mumps.
I am trying to put a serious argument. It is most important to this great town that the scheme for the co-ordination of transport should succeed. It is of vital importance that our great textile engineering industries, which have to send products of enormous weight, should have adequate facilities. A great deal of the replacement of railway facilities by road haulage facilities envisaged and carried out under the 1947 Act will be possible no longer if this miserably inadequate Amendment is carried, and they were of vital importance. One vast area 1067 of the town is split in two by the railway and transport has to go a mile or two round it. I am talking of a great town which has serious problems, and I want the House to consider them in that light.
What is to happen now? We are told that we are to return to horse-drawn vehicles or competitive enterprise to get our goods through. The Minister of Transport was asked a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling about tanks. Tanks require much the same sort of transport as textile machinery, very heavy transport. The Minister rose with great aplomb and said that it used to be done by private enterprise and we would go back to private enterprise. We shall still have a nationalised Army, but denationalised transport.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI really do not see what tanks have to do with this Amendment.
§ 4.30 a.m.
§ Mr. HaleI am sorry, but may I explain as briefly as I can? What is happening is that we are applying a tonnage rate test to the amount of allocation to be allowed to the Commission. The average weight, even on the basis of replacement, is about 3½ tons of net weight, and the sort of vehicles required for tanks or heavy textile machinery are of enormously greater weight. So, we are not only getting this gross reduction on vehicles, but if essential traffic is to be carried, the number of vehicles will have to be reduced again. We are not told upon what basis that will be; but what we do know is that it is impossible to conduct the trade and industry of a great town on the basis of the proposals we now have.
What does the Amendment say? The Amendment suggests that there should be an increase of 4 per cent. over the figure in the previous Amendment. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have to explain elementary arithmetic, but it is an increase of 5 per cent. on the figure of 1948. It is really quite simple, and while I would never be discourteous to the House of Commons, I would adopt parochialism from the parish pump and say there are no "blasted" juveniles in Oldham who would not understand that with greater celerity. We are being asked for an in- 1068 crease of 40 per cent.—or two-fifths of the amended figure. The Parliamentary Secretary was handed a sheet of paper with figures on it, which he had obviously not seen before, and with an expression of delight, explained that the actual tonnage had gone up, and that if this Amendment was carried, it would go up to 25 per cent.
We are in this position of difficulty, and I do not minimise that difficulty. The Lords' Amendment does make this increase; an increase which means a half of one per cent. of the total fleet of A vehicles we are talking about. It is a contemptuous figure. The Parliamentary Secretary called this substantial, while I think the Minister spoke of "some progress." Well, it is some progress; it is an advance of five yards in a 125 yards' race—4 per cent. What is being suggested here is precisely this. What is suggested is that the great arterial ways of this country, be they rail, or be they road highways, are deliberately to be crippled in their service to the country because of a policy of venom and because no one can defend the figures as put forward and which have been attacked by my hon. Friends.
During the war we had a period of six or seven years when the railway companies, preoccupied with the enormous burdens laid upon them and doing a service without which the country could not survive, and which was a No. 1 priority, probably did not take the normal methods of expanding their fleets to the extent that they would have done in normal conditions; and in 1945 the proposals for the nationalisation of transport were already formulated and ready to be announced. The railway companies were at a disadvantage at that stage.
Now, it is said that instead of what we compute as a normal necessary increase of about 20 per cent. per year, we shall get, not over what my right hon. Friend called five years—I make it six years; there are six months for these disposals to take place, and the computation has to be from 1st January, 1948, to not earlier than 1st January, 1954, which is six years—an offering which on the basis of the 1948 take-over is a 4 per cent. per annum increase on the existing figure towards the normal increase.
§ Mr. LindgrenOn a point of order. May I call attention to the reclining figures opposite?
§ Mr. CallaghanWake them up.
§ Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)What about those on the other side?
§ Mr. HaleAll that is being given is 4 per cent., or about one-fifth of the normal increase. But, of course, the increase would not have been normal. We had reached the stage when there was an absolute demand for horse-drawn vehicles to come up the road. I know that they steer clear of the city centre, but everyone knows that most municipalities are anxious to welcome a reduction in the number of horse-drawn vehicles that clutter up the road and are anxious to assist in every way alterations and replacement by motor transport; and that would have happened. There is no allowance for that at all.
§ Mr. GrimondWhat about the Shetland pony?
§ Mr. HaleI hear again that we have the parish pump. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is talking about that local means of transport, which we all respect very much and which, I understand from Professor de Castro, is the result of malnutrition. But the hon. Member will, I hope, develop that point more fully when he comes to speak. That, then, is the position. There is no allowance whatever for this great overall problem of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles.
What now is it suggested is to be the position? To what are the vehicles to be allocated? On what basis is it to be decided, and on what basis are the vehicles to be selected for allocation to the Transport Commission or to the companies to be formed to operate them? My right hon. Friend made a moving and convincing case, to which no answer has been made. It really is shocking that no one has attempted to answer it.
What is the contemplation of the Government in this matter? Is it contemplated that the Commission should abolish altogether this parcel-carrying trade? Is it contemplated that they should abandon altogether the work done by Pickfords, which involves a great deal of heavy transport?
§ Mr. MitchisonShame.
§ Mr. HaleI thought that my hon. and learned Friend was expressing dissent, but I gather that he was reassuring and fortifying me.
§ Mr. MitchisonTo relieve my hon. Friend of any anxiety, let me say that I was merely expressing the shame and indignation that all of us would feel if the horrible eventualities he was contemplating actually came about.
§ Mr. HaleI am grateful for that explanation. There is a method by which my hon. and learned Friend could express similar feelings without leading to any misinterpretation on the part of the less bright of us who misinterpret, and that is by the normal method of saying "Hear, hear."
Who is to decide which of these vital services goes? Who is to decide whether we carry heavy goods, or light goods, and whether we maintain these vital links along the roads, at which thousands of parcels and goods can be delivered from point to point? This is a great service, and magnificently done. Let me relate one simple experience of my own. I moved my house from Leicestershire to London, somewhat reluctantly, a year or two age. Because of the Prayers in the House at that time, it was almost impossible for me to see my wife without bringing her with the furniture. At 10 a.m. or a little earlier that morning, I commenced to pack my furniture into one enormous van and to wrap it, label it, and put it in in such a way that everything could be readily identified. By 3 p.m. the next day, the whole of the furniture was in a flat in London.
§ Mr. MitchisonMay I ask if this was the Special Parcels Division?
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I ask if it came under the category of abnormal and indivisible load?
§ Mr. HaleI shall not reply as I do not want to go outside the terms of order because of facetious interruptions in the middle of my peroration, which I confess, is somewhat disconcerting.
This is a major attack upon what is today an essential public service, and a social service, too. Nobody has listened to the arguments. The right hon. Gentleman thinks the Commission can function 1071 on this miserable, niggardly figure. There is an old proverb about cutting one's nose to spite one's face. I suppose the Opposition has difficulty in justifying itself if it votes against the five-fourth figure, which is a little more than six-fifths. But the Lords Amendment is so contemptuous and niggardly that it still leaves the Transport Commission crippled, forced to lose money, or forced to destroy its services so that, I hope, my hon. Friends might seriously consider even taking the difficult course of recording the protest we feel at the way the Commission is being treated.
§ Mr. GrimondI hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will forgive another Scotsman addressing the House. I hope he will forgive me, too, if I do not yield to the temptation he offered me of pursuing that interesting animal, the Shetland pony. I feel I might be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if not with the hon. Member.
It seems that the hon. Member's fears over this particular Lords Amendment may be exaggerated because the future of this industry depends less upon the particular provisions of this Bill than upon the developments which must take place after the Bill is in full effect. All this Bill does is to draw up the horses, so to speak, at the starting gate. Once it is in full effect, there is comparatively little control over them.
I cannot be expected at this time of day to say anything new, and it would be a new departure if I did. As I understand, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from buying further vehicles in the future and, therefore, what is important from the Commission's point of view is not so much the proportion with which it starts as its ability to buy further vehicles and to obtain licences for further services.
I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the licensing system with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as that may be out of order, but if the Commission can obtain licences for further services there is nothing to prevent them, if they have the money, from going into the market and increasing the number of their vehicles.
Mr. MitcthisonDoes the hon. Member contemplate that the Commission should first sell the vehicles and then be entitled to buy more?
§ Mr. GrimondI do not suggest that. I only suggest that they will be entitled to buy new vehicles.
§ 4.45 a.m.
§ Mr. PagetThis would seem to be the most remarkable justification one could imagine for this proposal that the Road Haulage Executive, having built us the services to a state of high efficiency and adapted them to the carrying of special loads, such as the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), should have to sell the vehicles and then buy them back again. What a fantastic justification.
§ Mr. MellishAnd will have to get a licence in order to buy them back, and go through all that procedure.
§ Mr. PagetWhat are they going to use for money? I feel that the Minister is looking at the Liberal Party and saying, "Save me from my friends." That is what a good many people have said after contemplating the Liberal Party. But I think it would be impossible to find a better illustration of the fundamental dishonesty of this Measure.
This is something which certainly has not occurred before in British history, the corrupt carve-up of public property for political funds. The Conservative Party seem to have two kinds of morality. There is the promise they made to the electorate which is bare-facedly ignored and the promise bought and paid for which has to be carried out; and as this transport deal that we are witnessing continues, we see the flagrant corruption becoming more apparent. Here is an illustration that 200 vehicles are compensation for 7,000 horse-drawn vehicles—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—3,000 horse-drawn vehicles, that is some 700 tons—
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps been so busy with other things that he has not checked up on this. He is adding the vehicles, the horse-drawn vehicles which belonged to the Commission and were used for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive and those used for the collection and delivery services of the rail- 1073 ways. He has taken the two lots of figures—I think I know where he got them from—and has put them together.
§ Mr. PagetEven if the figure is 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles to be substituted by 200 motorised vehicles, the inequity of the deal is no less obvious. It does not affect the principle. Licences for one motor vehicle were granted automatically. They were always treated as one for one, and now they are being treated as one for 15. It is not good enough. The railways are being asked to carry on the transport hopelessly handicapped, and deliberately handicapped, in order to make a profit for the purchasers who come in, a profit which is being flagrantly made at public expense. We should not be doing our duty if we were not to divide against this Amendment.
§ Mr. HoyI am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has not stayed a few minutes longer. We appear to have offended him by being parochial. He would have us believe that Scotland has commandeered the House far too long on this Amendment, but it is important for Scotland, as it is important for Oldham.
I do not know how we are to get a reply. The Minister said that we were all indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) for the work he did, and that because of his effort we have had this increase of from six-fifths to five-fourths. My right hon. Friend and I tried to get the Minister to say exactly what share of this increased transport was to be left in Scotland. I have heard that the Minister intended to reply or, if not, then his Parliamentary Secretary—
§ Mr. Mellish indicated dissent.
§ Mr. HoyYes, I think he might have replied, only he was prevented from doing so by the Patronage Secretary who moved the Closure. I mentioned my own constituency and the great building which had been taken over by the Transport Commission after it had been closed down as a passenger railway station for the better organising and distribution of the parcels service. I asked the Minister if he could tell us what would happen to it.
If I thought the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to reply, 1074 I might ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I must say for him that he sat throughout many hours of this debate. He must know from his position at the Scottish Office how important this traffic is for the south-east of Scotland. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not had the benefit of a word or two from the Minister. He was one of the great experts.
We might also have heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). People in his constituency are complaining that when this service is wiped out the Government will not put anything in its place. Hundreds of people will be left without a service of any kind. I do not want to speak for the hon. Member or for his right hon. Friend. I am particularly interested in what will happen in my own area and I should like to know whether the Minister will reply.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydYes.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI said that I would give a reply when the hon. Gentleman sits down.
§ Mr. HoyThat is most reprehensible. The Minister said, "I will give you a reply, but it will not be the one you want." That is the kind of thing we have been getting all night. Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland reply? I take it that he is sitting on the Front Bench tonight because he is to reply to any specific Scottish problems that arise. I suggest that until we get a reply it will be the duty of the Scottish Members in this House to keep the debate in progress so that we may be told what the set-up in Scotland will be.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt is an ironical fact that if we had not given any further concession to the Commission in another place we should not have been able to have had this debate tonight. There would have been no Lords Amendment to which the Opposition Amendment could have been moved. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides know enough about our procedure to know that that is so. I do not in the least regret that we have had this debate. It has certainly given me an insight into the home affairs of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
1075 On the question of horse-drawn traffic and the substitution of motor vehicles I believe that it was, and is, the practice of the Metropolitan licensing authority—I am speaking subject to correction—to grant 2½ tons unladen weight for every two horses given up. That is not an invariable rule and the practice differs from one licensing authority to another. But the difficulty we face in the case of the large number of horse-drawn vehicles taken over by the Commission and dispensed with is when we ask how many of them can fairly be said to have been dispensed with so that motor vehicles could be substituted for them, and how many were really dispensed with because they were redundant. We can argue until the cows, or rather the horses, come home on this question. We are satisfied that this concession goes some way to take care of the need and in the circumstances it is adequate.
The other question that was asked related to the growth in Pickfords Special Division and various kindred matters. I hope that it is not necessary once more to say that Pickfords Special Division as it is today is not the same thing as the old Pickfords which was part of Carter Paterson of the Hays Wharf Company. When such companies were controlled by the railway companies on 1st January, 1948, they owned some 3,900 vehicles. These included 164 heavy haulage and 1,257 other special vehicles in addition to normal haulage vehicles.
5.0 a.m.
The present Pickfords Division was built round this nucleus, but it is a different entity from the old Pickfords organisation. It may well be—I do not know and I have no means of checking up—that Pickfords business increased by 20 per cent. annually before the war. I do not think that anybody has any accurate statistics on that matter. But I am concerned with the allowance for growth which has been provided in the Bill. This was obviously not just a guess. Our allowance for growth was based on a comparison of the general growth of A-licensed and Commission-owned vehicles from December, 1946, to December, 1952.
In December, 1946, there were 81,000 A-licensed vehicles, and in December, 1076 1952, there were 94,000 A-licensed vehicles and Commission-owned vehicles. That shows an increase of 13,000 over a period of six years, which is rather below 3 per cent., and all this argument of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. as representing the Commission's increase should be viewed in the light of the fact that over the whole field of A-licensed and Commission-owned vehicles the increase has been less than 3 per cent. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government that the figure we arrived at was a fair one, and I am perfectly prepared to defend it. I can hold out no hope that that figure will be altered.
I was also asked a question by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). I congratulate him on his ingenuity in getting that question into this debate when he had failed to elicit from me an answer in the previous debate. In regard to the broad needs of Scotland I do not share the pessimistic views that have been expressed about Scotland's freight transport future. They appear to me to be based on the most gloomy expectations, which there seems no reason to think will be realised.
In the light of modern developments private enterprise can well provide adequate services in Scotland. I do not know what the Commission may decide to do, and I would not attempt to prejudge their unfettered decision with regard to their Scottish operations.
As for the particular building in Leith to which my attention was directed, it would clearly be impossible for me to say what would happen to it in advance of the disposal of the property of the Road Haulage Executive. At the moment, I do not know the precise term of tenure. It might, for example, be jointly used by railways and road haulage, in which case there is a special provision to cover it. It might be used wholly by road haulage and look like falling for sale, but be part of an old railway station—as I gather it is—and be contiguous to the railway station, in which case, if the hon. Member for Leith looks ahead, he will see that there is a later Amendment, which the Commission asked me to put in, which particularly takes care of such a case. It would be most unwise to give a dogmatic answer until I know into which category it would fall.
1077 It also rests with the Commission, within certain limits, to make up their own minds what part of the road haulage property they propose to retain.
§ Mr. RossDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is being discourteous? My hon. Friend has asked this question at least three times during the many stages of the debate and now, at this final stage, the Minister still does not know anything about it.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNobody acquainted with the normal practice of debate would regard it as discourtesy. I know that this question was asked earlier, and I have done my best to pick up most of the points which have been raised in the debates we have had throughout this Bill. I can claim without undue boasting that I take particular pains about personal, local and constituency problems which hon. Gentlemen may have to raise. That I cannot give a precise answer is because I believe in verifying my facts first, and I commend that as good advice to the hon. Member for Kilmamock (Mr. Ross) in his Parliamentary career.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesBefore we demonstrate in the Division Lobbies our dissatisfaction with the small increase which this Amendment provides, I should like to make one or two points about the failure of the Minister to answer the case made from this side. The Minister's case is that the number of vehicles which the Commission took over in 1948 should be increased by 25 per cent., and that was all to which they were entitled. All the way through the Minister has approached this matter quite from the wrong angle.
Rather than look at the position of the Commission today, and ask what was the minimum number of vehicles needed to be retained in order to maintain the minimum essential service, he has taken an arbitrary figure for 1948, and increased it by the arbitrary amount of 25 per cent. If he had looked at the essential services, and then decided which should be retained in the public interest, instead of thinking how few could be retained, he would have served the community better.
In the case of Pickfords, for instance, he says they are not the same as they were in 1948, because the Commission 1078 placed various vehicles taken over from other undertakings into this organisation. But, because Pickfords is different in 1953 to 1948, because it is larger, the organisation is more efficiently run, it is more economical and it makes a profit today in serving the national interest, is that any reason why Pickfords should be broken up, disintegrated and the staff dissipated? There is no justification for breaking up Pickfords at this time simply because it has increased since 1948 and saying that it must return to the figure it had in 1948, plus 25 per cent.
Does the Minister realise that if the Commission decided, out of the 4,875 vehicles they will be allowed to retain, to retain any one of its national services, it 'would not be able to run any other service? If it retained the 3,000 vehicles Pickfords have today, it would only have 1,700 vehicles left to run all its other services. Or if it decided, instead of retaining Pickfords, to retain the smalls and parcels division that is giving a service throughout the country, it would only have a few vehicles left, because the parcels division uses 3,500 vehicles a day.
It is not just to allow the Commission only this small number of vehicles which makes certain that not a single one of the national services built up during the last five years can be retained. If they had been left with sufficient vehicles to maintain one or other of the services, Pickfords, parcels or trunk, it would have been sensible. To take an arbitrary figure, so that not one of the national services will be able to be maintained, is to destroy something which has been created with great energy and enthusiasm during the last five years.
The Minister has shown that he is determined to disrupt the Road Haulage Executive. He is not concerned with the interests of the trader or the user or with the national interest at all. All he is concerned with is returning as many of these vehicles as possible to private enterprise, irrespective of what will be left with the Commission and what services the Commission will be able to operate. In doing so he has ignored completely the advice of certain sections of industry—the advice of the Central Consultative Committee in the report they presented to him, and the advice of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
1079 Tonight, the Minister claims this increase to five-fourths, which represents only 200 more vehicles, as a valuable concession which takes care, as he said, of the horse-drawn vehicles, about which we have already argued, and which takes care of Pickford's and the other matters which have been raised in debate. The Minister cannot be serious. He is deceiving himself. He is simply hiding behind this small concession in the hope
§ that the damage he is doing to the road services of the Road Haulage Executive will be overlooked and forgotten.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ 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, 248; Noes, 231.
1083| Division No. 136.] | AYES | [5.11 a.m |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Fisher, Nigel | Lindsay, Martin |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. | Lintstead, H. N. |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Fort, R. | Longden, Gilbert |
| Arbuthnot, John | Foster, John | Low, A. R. W. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) | McAdden, S. J. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) | McCallum, Major D. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Barber, Anthony | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Godber, J. B. | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Gough, C. F. H. | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Gower, H. R. | Maclean, Fitzroy |
| Bonnett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Graham, Sir Fergus | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Grimond, J. | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) |
| Birch, Nigel | Harden, J. R. E. | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hare, Hon. J. H. | Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. |
| Black, C. W. | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) | Marlowe, A. A. H. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Marples, A. E. |
| Bowen, E. R. | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maude, Angus |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) | Maudling, R. |
| Braine, B. R. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Hay, John | Mellor, Sir John |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Heald, Sir Lionel | Molson, A. H. E. |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Heath, Edward | Morrison, John (Salisbury) |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Higgs, J. M. C. | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Bullard, D. G. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) |
| Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Nield, Basil (Chester) |
| Burden, F. F.A. | Hirst, Geoffrey | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Holland-Martin, C. J. | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Campbell, Sir David | Hollis, M. C. | Nutting, Anthony |
| Carr, Robert | Holt, A. F. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hope, Lord John | Odey, G. W. |
| Channon, H. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) |
| Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Horobin, I. M. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Cole, Norman | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Osborne, C. |
| Colegate, W. A. | Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | |
| Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert | Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Partridge, E. |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Crarborne, Viscount | Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Payton, J. W. W. |
| Crouch, R. F. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Kaberry, D. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Keeling, Sir Edward | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Digby, S. Wingfield | Kerr, H. W. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Lambton, Viscount | Profumo, J. D. |
| Donner, P. W. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Raikes, Sir Victor |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Langford-Holt, J. A. | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Erroll, F. J. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Renton, D. L. M. |
| Fell, A. | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Finlay, Graeme | Lennex-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Roper, Sir Harold | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Russell, R. S. | Storey, S. | Vosper, D. F. |
| Ryder, Capt. R.E. D. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) | Studholme, H. G. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Scott, R. Donald | Summers, G. S. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Shepherd, William | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) | Wellwood, W. |
| Snadden, W. McN. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Soames, Capt. C. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Speir, R. M. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Tilney, John | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) | Touche, Sir Gordon | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | Turner, H. F. L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Stevens, G. P. | Turton, R. H. | Major Conant and Mr. Wells. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | McNeill, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Albu, A. H. | Foot, M. M. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Forman, J. C. | Mainwaring, W. H. |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Freeman, John (Watford) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Mann, Mrs. Jean |
| Baird, J. | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | Manuel, A. C. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Gibson, C. W. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. |
| Bartley, P. | Glanville, James | Mason, Roy |
| Bence, C. R. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mayhew, C. P. |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) | Mellish, R. J. |
| Benson, G. | Grey, C. F. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Beswick, F. | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Monslow, W. |
| Blackburn, F. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Moody, A. S. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hale, Leslie | Morley, R. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) |
| Boardman, H. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) | Moyle, A. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Hamilton, W. W. | Mulley, F. W. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Hannan, W. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) |
| Bowles, F. G. | Hargreaves, A. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hayman, F. H. | Oliver, G. H. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.) | Orbach, M. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) | Oswald, T. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Herbison, Miss M. | Padley, W. E. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Paget, R. T. |
| Burke, W. A. | ||
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Holman, P. | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Houghton, Douglas | Pannell, Charles |
| Carmichael, J. | Hoy, J. H. | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Parker, J. |
| Champion, A. J. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pearson, A. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Peart, T. F. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Plummer, Sir Leslie |
| Coldrick, W. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Popplewell, E. |
| Collick, P. H. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Porter, G. |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) |
| Cove, W. G. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Janner, B. | Proctor, W. T. |
| Crosland, C. A. R. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Pryde, D. J. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Pursey, Cmdr. H. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Rankin, John |
| Darlign, George (Hillsborough) | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Reeves, J. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Reid, William (Camlachie) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Rhodes, H. |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Deer, G. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Keenan, W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Dodds, N. N. | Key, Rt.Hon. C. W. | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Donnelly, D. L. | King, Dr. H. M. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Ross, William |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Royle, C. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Shackleton, E. A. A. |
| Edelman, M. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Short, E. W. |
| Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Lewis, Arthur | Shurmer, P. L. E. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Lindgren, G. S. | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | MacColl, J. E. | Silverman Sydney (Nelson) |
| Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | McGhee, H. G. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Fernyhough, E. | McInnes, J. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Fienburgh, W. | McLeavy, F. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Finch, H. J. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) |
| Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W.) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Snow, J. W. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) | Wigg, George |
| Sorensen, R. W. | Thornton, E. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Timmons, J. | Willey, F. T. |
| Sparks, J. A. | Tomney, F. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Usborne, H. C. | Williams, W. R. (Droylesden) |
| Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. | Wallace, H. W. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Stross, Dr. Barnett | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. | Weitzman, D. | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Swingler, S. T. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Sylvester, G. O. | West, D. G. | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John | Yates, V. F. |
| Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) | Wheeldon, W. E. | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Thomas, David (Aberdare) | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Thomas, George (Cardiff) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. Taylor. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
1084§ The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 232.
1087| Division No. 137.] | AYES | [5.20 a.m. |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Doughty, C. J. A. | Keeling, Sir Edward |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Drayson, G. B. | Kerr, H. W. |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Erroll, F. J. | Lambert, Hon. G. |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Fell, A. | Lambton, Viscount |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Finlay, Graeme | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Fisher, Nigel | Langford-Holt, J. A. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Fort, R. | Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Foster, John | Lindsay, Martin |
| Banks, Col. C. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Linstead, H. N. |
| Barber, Anthony | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Baxter, A. B. | Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) | Longden, Gilbert |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) | Low, A. R. W. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Godber, J. B. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Gough, C. F. H. | McAdden, S. J. |
| Birch, Nigel | Gower, H. R. | McCallum, Major D. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Graham, Sir Fergus | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Black, C. W. | Grimond, J. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Bowen, E. R. | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Harden, J. R. E. | Maclean, Fitzroy |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hare, Hon. J. H. | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) |
| Braine, B. R. | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) | Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. |
| Browne, Jack (Govan) | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Markham, Major S. F. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Hay, John | Ma lowe, A. A. H. |
| Bullard, D. G. | Heald, Sir Lionel | Marples, A. E. |
| Bullus, Wing Commander E. E | Heath, Edward | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) |
| Burden, F. F. A. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Maude, Angus |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Higgs, J. M. C. | Maudling, R |
| Campbell, Sir David | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. |
| Carr, Robert | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Mellor, Sir John |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Molson, A. H. E. |
| Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Holland-Martin, C. J | Morrison, John (Salisbury) |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Hollis, M. C | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. |
| Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Holt, A. F. | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Cole, Norman | Hope, Lord John | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Colegate, W. A. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) |
| Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert | Horobin, I. M. | Nield, Basil (Chester) |
| Craddock, Berasford (Spelthorne) | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Nutting, Anthony |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Crouch, R. F. | Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Illord, N.) | Odey, G. W. |
| Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Hyde, Lt-Col. H. M. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Digby, S. Wingfield | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Osborne, C. |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA | Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Partridge, E. |
| Donner, P. W. | Kaberry, D. | Peake, Rt. Hon O |
| Perkins, W. R. D. | Shepherd, William | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N |
| Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Tilney, John |
| Peyton, J. W. W. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) | Turner, H. F. L |
| Pilkington, Capt. R. A | Snadden, W. McN. | Turton, R. H. |
| Pitman, I. J. | Soames, Capt. C. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Powell, J. Enoch | Speir, R. M. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L. | Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Profumo, J. D. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Raikes, Sir Victor | Stevens, G. P. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Rayner, Brig. R. | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M | Waterhouse, Capl. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Renton, D. L. M. | Storey, S. | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) | Webbs, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | Wellwood, W. |
| Roper, Sir Harold | Studholme, H. G. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Summers, G. S. | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Russell, R. S. | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Ryder, Capt. R E. D. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) | Wills, G. |
| Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) | |
| Scott, R. Donald | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) | Major Conant and Mr. Vosper. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) |
| Albu, A. H. | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Fernyhough, E. | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Fienburgh, W. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Finch, H. J. | Lewis, Arthur |
| Baird, J. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Lindgren, G. S. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J | Foot, M. M. | MacColl, J. E. |
| Bartley, P. | Forman, J. C. | McGhee, H. G. |
| Bence, C. R. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mclnnes, J. |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Freeman, John (Watford) | McLeavy, F. |
| Benson, G. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | MacMilan, M. K. (Western Isles) |
| Beswick, F. | Gaitskell. Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Gibson, C. W. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) |
| Blackburn, F. | Glanville, James | Mainwaring, W. H. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) |
| Boardman, H. | Grey, C. F. | Mann, Mrs. Jean |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Manuel, A. C. |
| Bowden, H. W. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. |
| Bowles, F. W. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Mason, Roy |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hale, Leslie | Mayhew, C. P. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mellish, R. J. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hamilton, W. W. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hannan, W. | Monslow, W. |
| Burke, W. A. | Hargreaves, A. | Moody, A. S. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Hayman, F. H. | Morley, R. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. (Rowley Regis) | Moyle, A. |
| Carmichael, J. | Herbison, Miss M. | Mulley, F. W. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) |
| Champion, A. J. | Holman. P. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Houghton, Douglas | Orbach, M. |
| Coldrick, W. | Hoy, J. H. | Oswald, T. |
| Collick, P. H. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Padley, W. E. |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Paget, R. T. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Crosland, C. A. R. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Pannell, Charles |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Parker, J. |
| Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Pearson, A. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Janner, B. | Peart, T. F. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Plummer, Sir Leslie |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Jeger, George (Goole) | Porter, G. |
| Deer, G. | Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Prive, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Dodds, N. N. | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Donnelly, D. L. | Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Pryde, D. J. |
| Driberg, T. E. N | Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S) | Pursey, Cmdr. H |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Rankin, John |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Reeves, J. |
| Edelman, M. | Keenan, W. | Reid, William (Camlachie) |
| Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W | Rhodes, H. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | King, Dr. H. M | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. | West, D. G. |
| Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pawns, N.) | Stross, Dr. Bamett | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Ross, William | Swingler, S. T. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Royle, C. | Sylvester, G. O. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Shackleton, E. A. A. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) | Wigg, George |
| Short, E. W. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Shurmer, P. L. E. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Thomas, David (Aberdare) | Willey, F. T. |
| Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Thomas, George (Cardiff) | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Simmom, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Skeffington, A. M. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Thornton, E. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) | Timmons, J. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | Tomney, F. | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Snow, J. W. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn | Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Sorensen, R. W. | Usborne, H. C. | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Wallace, H. W. | Yates, V. F. |
| Sparks, J. A. | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Stewart, Miohael (Fulham, E.) | Weitzman, D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Arthur Allen. |
§ 5.30 a.m.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
It is now half-past five and it is quite a time since we considered the question of adjourning. Certain Amendments have been disposed of, and I think it would be right, proper and reasonable, that the House should terminate its labours. I trust that the Leader of the House will be agreeable to this course being taken. The traffic is about to move, and it is a convenient time for hon. Members who must use public transport to get home as soon as they can travel by it. Therefore, it is right, proper, and reasonable, especially in view of the manner in which the Leader of the House spoke at one o'clock, that we should now adjourn.
§ Mr. CrookshankI must say that, considering the time, I was not entirely taken by surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Motion again. We have had some progress during the debate but, quite frankly, not as much as the Government had hoped. Perhaps in some ways it would be a pity to be weary of well-doing, because we have had a very good-tempered debate. I do not think I can remember when we sat so long and had such very good temper shown throughout. Also, I do not remember, through all the hours of the night before, seeing the House so well attended continuously on both sides, thus showing the importance of the debate, and the interest which hon. Members were taking in it.
We have considered what the best course would be to advise now. I think I am right in saying that as we are to resume later in the day, it is always more 1088 convenient to begin again with the matter which is likely to raise considerable debate, rather than with a smaller though important point. I am not saying that any part discussed is not important, but some parts are more important than others.
I think it would be convenient for everyone, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, if we did not at this Sitting embark on the big Amendment half-way down page 2, dealing with the transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares, but reserved that for the opening of our resumed debate. That would mean that we should not adjourn forthwith, but take the Amendment to leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert other words, and the Amendment to line 44. I hope that will be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman -[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and that he will therefore withdraw the Motion instead of discussing it further and take such time as is necessary for the two Amendments.
§ Mr. MorrisonI can speak again only by leave of the House, but I cannot agree to what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. At some time earlier, at what was considered, at any rate by hon. Members on this side of the House as a convenient hour, I urged the very course which the right hon. Gentleman is now urging. No notice was taken of that. The Amendments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman are of some substance and will take a little time to debate. In view of the hour and number of times which this Motion has been moved and, on the face of it, received by the right hon. Gentleman with some understanding and good temper, I cannot see why he 1089 should persistently make the same speech and want to go on. We do not agree with the proposal he has made and must oppose it.
§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)It is clear that the Leader of the House has not spent much time in the debate, otherwise he would not have made the statement he did. He said the House had been well attended. That is true so far as this side of the House is concerned. But there has not been a single speech from hon. Members opposite. For the major part of the time there have not been more than a dozen hon. Members present in the Chamber and most of them have been asleep. On one or two occasions Mr. Deputy-Speaker instructed that hon. Members on the Government side of the House should be wakened up so that they might take part in the deliberations.
§ Mr. G. WilsonThe hon. Member states that there were no speeches made from this side. That is not correct, as I made a speech.
§ Mr. WiggIt is true the hon. Member did speak, but that was at nine o'clock last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has spoken since then"]—I can only assume the hon. Member was speaking in his sleep—
§ Mr. Kenneth Thompson (Liverpool, Walton)In your sleep.
§ Mr. WiggThere were other hon. Members opposite who were on their feet, but one can only assume they were passing in and out of the Chamber.
This behaviour of the Leader of the House is not peculiar. He always behaves in the same way. He is the worst Leader of the House since I have been a Member and in the memory of many hon. Members who have been here longer than I have. The right hon. Gentleman pays little attention to the proceedings. He comes into the Chamber for short periods and then makes the wildest statements, such as the claim he has just made. If we have not made all the progress he wants, the responsibility lies in a large measure with the Patronage Secretary. For example, it was absurd for the Patronage Secretary to move to report progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Only one of my hon. Friends was on his 1090 feet and he was only going to speak for a minute or so.
§ Lieutenant-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)On a point of order.
§ Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must hear the point of order.
§ Lieutenant-Colonel Bromley-DavenportIs it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Gentleman to speak with a hot potato in his mouth? We cannot hear what he is saying.
§ Mr. WiggI am sorry if the effects of a cold make it sound as if I have a hot potato in my mouth, but at least there is one claim I can make; I am in no hurry. I do not drop the bricks that are sometimes dropped by the Front Bench opposite, and I certainly do not drop the bricks that are dropped by the Patronage Secretary. These debates are taking the form they are simply because of the tactics of the Patronage Secretary before the Easter Recess.
The point I am making is that four times tonight the Closure has been moved quite unnecessarily because, as the Leader of the House himself said, the debates have been good-tempered, they have been well-informed, there has been no obstruction. We have dealt with measures of great importance and the Patronage Secretary, if he had paid the House the courtesy of being present at the debates, would not have come in and moved the Closure.
Both the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House treat the House with much less courtesy than is the custom, because neither of them spends any great time in the House. They pop in for a few minutes and then they pop out again. Time and again in the debates tonight, and on previous occasions, the Patronage Secretary had not the least idea of what was happening, and an hour of our time has been wasted tonight because of his tactics.
I do not mind if the debate continues. It can go on all day and all tomorrow and all the day after. But in view of the weariness and the lack of interest shown by the party opposite in the proceedings of the House, and the fact that only a dozen or so have been in the 1091 House and the majority of those have been asleep; in the interests of the health of the party opposite it would be wise to report Progress now so that before we resume at 2.30 this afternoon hon. Gentlemen, if they have not had the chance to get some sleep, could at least have gone out and bought some benzadrine tablets.
Mr. S. SilvennanI do not think it would be right for the House to come to a conclusion upon this Motion without considering the position into which the Government have now brought the House of Commons. From anybody's point of view the piece of legislation with which we are concerned is regarded as of some importance. We are dealing with some valuable national property for which we paid a lot of money a year or two ago. It may be that the Government are right, though we do not think they are, in wishing to dispose of it now, but it is after all national property. We spent a lot of money to acquire it. It must be a matter of some importance whether we retain it or get rid of it in job lots at knock down prices.
5.45 a.m.
How are we dealing with the matter? We had the original Bill under a rigid Guillotine. The position in which the House of Commons finds itself this morning is due directly to the insistence of the Government in forcing the Measure through Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading under a Guillotine which did not even give the Government time to make the Amendments in their own Measure which they wanted to make. Because they did not do that the Bill went to another place in a form in which even the Government would not have it, and it came back to this House with these further Amendments. Many of them are of a most fundamental nature.
Two or three weeks ago before the Easter Recess the Government wanted to force the Bill through within a couple of hours sandwiched between other business. But the House would not have that. Four times during the night's debate the Government have been asked to deal with the matter in a more seemly and becoming way and on each occasion they have refused.
1092 Ever since the last General Election, when the Government took the place of power on a minority vote, against the will of the majority of the electors, they have done everything in their power to bring Parliament and its procedure and conduct into public disrepute. What they are concerned with in these proceedings is not the denationalisation of road haulage. That is a secondary matter in their minds. What they wish to defeat is democracy and its operation in this country. They do not like it. They only like Parliamentary democracy when they can be sure that they can fool the majority of the electors to vote for them in General Elections.
As soon as it became clear that they could not do that then the proper thing to do was to seize power in any way which our constitution enabled them to do and then force through all the Measures which they knew the people did not want—to get as much out of it as they can for themselves and their friends and all the people who supplied their electoral machine with the necessary money, to do as much damage as they can to the national property in the shortest possible time no matter at what sacrifice of Parliamentary prestige and representative democracy.
This is, surely, something which the House ought not to tolerate. If there is anything which the House can do to hold up this Bill, to interfere with it, to prevent this job from being done until again the people have an opportunity of expressing their will upon it in the ballot box, then we ought to do it.
§ Mr. RossI appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider his position. It is now ten minutes to six, and in about 4¾ hours the Scottish Grand Committee is to meet. We have to go on to a discussion of another Bill dealing with hospital endowments—a matter of complexity and definite importance—and it will not be very easy for us to leave this Chamber and, after about an hour's rest, tackle that Bill.
It has been very noticeable that the Leader of the House has been shepherding the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has not shown his face in our deliberations this morning. The same thing applies to the Lord Advocate. I should like to think that the Secretary 1093 of State for Scotland has spent the whole night getting a speech ready for the Scottish Grand Committee.
Surely the Leader of the House realises that there is a time to give way gracefully. Can he not, for once, do the right thing? Let us end our deliberations now. Let us start again this afternoon and give Scottish Members at least a little rest. I have long stopped appealing to the Sudeten Scotsman, the Patronage Secretary; we disowned him long ago; but surely the Leader of the House will give a certain amount of consideration to the importance which Scotland places upon the Scottish Grand Committee and the effectiveness of their debates. Will he withdraw from the position he has so far taken up?
§ Mr. PagetI cannot help feeling that if the Leader of the House had graced us with a little more of his company he might have come to a different conclusion about this matter, if only out of sympathy for the right hon, Gentleman, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who have been in charge of this debate. As we have gone along two parallel debates have been going on at the same time, one conducted by the Member who had the Floor of the House and the other between the three Members of the Government Front Bench who were trying to ascertain what their Bill meant. Any coincidence in their views as to the meaning of their Bill appeared to be purely coincidental. It has been a most curious performance.
When the Adjournment was moved last time I warned the Leader of the House that we were not saving time by going on in these hours, because the longer we
§ went on the slower we got. That is not because the critics of the Bill, at this hour, naturally find it difficult to express themselves as concisely as they normally would, but because the Bill becomes steadily worse and worse handled. That has been our experience this morning. Surely it is time to call it a day, if only as an act of mercy to the Ministers in charge of the Bill.
§ Mr. NallyI can see no point in making any appeal to the Leader of the House. What the House should do—certainly hon. Members opposite—is to see how far we have already abandoned the dignity of the House in discussing this Bill. I am not apportioning blaim, although I think it lies on the other side. Many hon. Members have been asleep in various places in the House while we have been discussing, through the long hours, vital measures which affect literally millions of our people.
The country is completely aware of the fact that hon. Members cannot discuss these things properly at this hour. Therefore, I would say to the Leader of the House that he can please himself. He can go ahead. If we finish now he still will not have rescued the dignity of the House, but he will at least have prevented this unfortunate and disgraceful spectacle, with which he apparently wishes to continue. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to adjourn now in view of the fact that apparently tonight we are expected to go through this disgraceful performance again.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 227: Noes, 245.
1097| Division No. 138.] | AYES | [5.55 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard | Bowles, F. G. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Albu, A. H. | Braddook, Mrs, Elizabeth | Crotland, C. A. B. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworlh) | Brockway, A. F. | Cullen, Mrs. A. |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Dalton, Rt. Han. H. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) |
| Baird, J. | Burke, W. A. | Davies, Harold (Leek) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Burton, Miss F. E. | de Freitas, Geoffrey |
| Bartley, P. | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Deer, G. |
| Benoe, C. R. | Callaghan, L. J. | Delargy, H. J. |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Carmichael, J. | Dodds, N. N. |
| Benign, G. | Castle, Mrs. B. A | Donnelly, D. L. |
| Beswick, F. | Champion, A. J. | Driberg, T. E. N. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Chapman, W. D. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) |
| Blackburn, F. | Chetwynd, G. R | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Coldrick, W. | Edelman, M. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Collick, P. H. | Edwards, John (Brighouse) |
| Boardman, H. | Corbet, Mrs. Freds | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G | Cove, W G. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) |
| Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Fienburgh, W. | Lewis, Arthur | Ross, William |
| Finch, H. J. | Lindgren, G. S. | Royle, C. |
| Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | MacColl, J. E. | Shackleton, E. A. A. |
| Foot, M. M. | McGhee, H. G. | Short, E. W. |
| Forman, J. C. | Mclnnes, J. | Shurmer, P. L. E |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | McLeavy, F. | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) |
| Freeman, John (Watford) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Silvarman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Freeman, Peter (Newport) | MoNeil, Rt. Hon. H. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Gibson, C. W. | Mainwaring, W. H. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Glanville, James | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) |
| Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Snow, J. W. |
| Grey, C. F. | Manuel, A. C. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mason, Roy | Sparks, J. A. |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Mayhew, C. P. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hale, Leslie | Mellish, R. J. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mikardo, Ian | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) | Mitchison, G. R. | Stress, Dr. Barnett |
| Hamilton, W. W. | Monslow, W. | Swingler, S. T. |
| Hannan, W. | Moody, A. S. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Hargreaves, A. | Morley, R. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) | Moyle, A. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) | Mulley, F. W. | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Holman, P. | Oliver, G. H. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) | Orbach, M. | Thornton, E. |
| Houghton, Douglas | Oswald, T. | Timmons, J. |
| Hoy, J. H. | Padley, W. E. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Usborne, H. C. | ||
| Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Paget, R. T. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Wells' Percy (Faversham) |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Pannell, Charles | West, D. G. |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Pargitar, G. A. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Parker, J. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Pearson, A. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Peart, T. F. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Janner, B. | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Wigg, George |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Popplewell, E. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Porter, G. | Willey, F. T. |
| Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Proctor, W. T. | Williams, W. R. (Droyisden) |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Pryde, D. J. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Rankin, John | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Reeves, J. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Keenan, W. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W | Rhodes, H. | Yates, V. F. |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. A. | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wilkins. |
| NOES | ||
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Bossom, A. C. | Colegate, W. A. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Bower, E. R. | Conant, Maj. R. J. E. |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Boyle, Sir Edward | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Braine, B. R. | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Arbuthnot, John | Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Crouch, R. F. |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Brooman-White, R. C. | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Browne, Jack (Govan) | Davidson, Viscountess |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Deedes, W. F. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Bullard, D. G. | Digby, S. Wingfield |
| Barber, Anthony | Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E | Dodds-Parker, A. D. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Burden, F. F. A. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Donner, P. W. |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Campbell, Sir David | Doughty, C. J. A |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Carr, Robert | Drayson, G. B. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Cary, Sir Robert | Erroll, F. J. |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Channon, H. | Fell, A. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Finlay, Graeme |
| Birch, Nigel | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Fisher, Nigel |
| Bishop, F. P. | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. |
| Black, C. W. | Cole, Norman | Fletcher-Cooke, C. |
| Ford, Mrs. Patricia | Linstead, H. N. | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Fort, R. | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Rodgert, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Foster, John | Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Longden, Gilbert | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Low, A. R. W. | Russell, R. S. |
| Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. |
| Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D, (Pollok) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. |
| Garner-Evans, E. H. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) |
| George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd | McAdden, S. J. | Scott, R. Donald |
| Godber, J. B. | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Gough, C. F. H. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Shepherd, William |
| Gower, H. R. | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Grimond, J. | Maclean, Fitzroy | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
| Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Snadden, W. MoN. |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Harden, J. R. E. | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Speir, R. M. |
| Hart, Hon. J. H. | Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeonshire, W.) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Markham, Major S. F. | Stevens, G. P. |
| Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Marplos, A. E. | Steddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Hay, John | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Heald, Sir Lionel | Maude, Angus | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Heath, Edward | Maudling, R. | Studholme, H, G. |
| Henderson, John (Cathoart) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Summers, G. S. |
| Higgs, J. M. C. | Mellor, Sir John | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Molson, A. H. E. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hirst Geoffrey | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Holland-Martin, C. J. | Nicholls, Harmar | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hollis, M. C. | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Holt, A. F. | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Hope, Lord John | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. | Tilney, John |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Nugent, G. R. H. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Horobin, I. M. | Nutting, Anthony | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Oakshott, H. D. | Turton, R. H. |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Odey, G. W. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Viant, S. P. |
| Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Vosper, D. F. |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Osborne, C. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Partridge, E. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Kaberry, D. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Wellwood, W. |
| Lambert, Hon. C. | Pitman, I. J. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Lambton, Viscount | Powell, J. Enoch | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croyden, E.) |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Profumo, J. D. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Raikes, Sir Victor | |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Rayner, Brig. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and Mr. Wells. |
| Lindsay, Martin | Renton, D. L. M. |
§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend and myself both heard the Minister of Transport shouting "Aye" when the voices were collected and then vote in the "No" Lobby. Could it be arranged that the Division records be amended accordingly?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is too late. Any query about an hon. Member's vote must be taken before the figures are announced from the Chair.
§ Mr. BennFurther to that, until the figures are announced it is impossible 1098 to calculate whether an hon. Member has voted.
§ Mr. SpeakerSometimes the question arises when an hon. Member gives his voice in one direction and goes into the other Lobby and that matter can be taken up before the figures are announced from the Chair.
§
Lords Amendment: Leave out lines 33 to 37, and insert:
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—
1099
does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out from "proviso," to "following," and to insert:
in the case of vehicles belonging to each of the two.I think it very regrettable that we should now have to discuss the very complicated Amendment which comes from the Lords and to which we have put down two Amendments. It would be for the convenience of the House if the two Amendments relating to this Lords Amendment were discussed together.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would be very convenient if the hon. Member is referring to the Amendment to line 2 and the Amendment to leave out "(c) other motor vehicles, does," and insert:
the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over shall.
§ Mr. DaviesYes, Mr. Speaker.
The House will recall that during the Committee stage there was considerable discussion concerning the Clause to which the Lords Amendment relates—to Clause 4 (2, ii). This paragraph provided that the vehicles which the Commission could retain should be of comparable size, nature and quality with the vehicles taken over. It was considered by the Committee that this was far too rigid a proviso and that there should be some flexibility. After considerable discussion, the Minister agreed that he would give further consideration to the matter and see whether there could be some differentiation as between different categories of vehicles which the Commission were allowed to retain.
As a consequence, the Lords Amendment is now before us and provides that whereas the vehicles which the Commission retain—the 4,875 vehicles we were discussing on the last two Amendments—have to be divided into three cate- 1100 gories, heavy vehicles carrying indivisible loads, special vehicles and other motor vehicles. Whereas they will not all have to be the same size and nature as they were in January, 1948, there can be tolerance and flexibility as between each of the three categories; that is to say, whereas the limit of each is fixed at 30 per cent, above pre-nationalisation holdings, the overall limit is 25 per cent. If the Commission wish to retain more than the 125 per cent. in one or two of the categories they will be permitted to do so up to 130 per cent. as long as they keep the overall total of the three categories within the 125 per cent. That means a flexibility of 5 per cent.
I know that this is a very complicated matter and it is unfortunate that we have to discuss it as this early hour of the morning. To put it very briefly, it means that the Commission can choose up to the extent of 5 per cent. additional vehicles which it holds in each category, and reduce the number in the other categories. If it decides to have 130 per cent. of the 1948 vehicles as special vehicles, then it would have to reduce either the indivisible loads, or the other vehicles, by that 5 per cent.
We consider that this is still far too rigid and that it is unjustifiable for the Minister to impose such rigidity on the Commission. If the Commission is to be allowed to retain nearly 5,000 vehicles, and is limited to that 5,000, why cannot it have which vehicles it wants? Why must it be fixed by the Minister that the Commission can only have within the small margin the same number of special vehicles, and other vehicles, and not be able to decide which types it is going to have? The small amount of tolerance shown is insufficient.
There is no need for fixing the categories in this way. It should be left to the Commission to determine for itself. Why does the Minister want to reproduce the exact pattern of 1948? Since then, there has been a great number of changes in the road haulage industry, and had nationalisation not come about there would have been changes. There have been what one might call natural developments, and the types of vehicles and the types of traffic on the roads have developed with increased production and the shift-over in certain lines of production.
1101 This insistence of the Minister on the pattern of 1948 means that he is taking no notice at all of any changes in the demand for transport which have occurred since 1948. Furthermore, why is it that the Commission must have its hands tied behind its back in this way? Why must the Commission be so handicapped in competing with private enterprise? Throughout the debates the Minister has insisted that, with denationalisation, he was leaving the Commission in a position to compete and has said that there would be competition between the Commission and private enterprise. But here he is imposing a restriction on the Commission which will prevent it from competing freely.
In the section of heavy haulage which the Commission is allowed to retain, there may be greater demand, and it could run more efficiently by increasing its heavy haulage vehicles at the expense of others. But, by the Amendment from the Lords, the Commission could only increase them by 5 per cent., and correspondingly reduce the number of other vehicles which it holds. The same argument could apply to special vehicles, or any vehicles of the other categories. This is a handicap to the Commission. Why cannot it be left free to concentrate its vehicles into its large-scale organisation and decide whether it wants to concentrate its vehicles on the parcels traffic, or on the main trunk services, in Pickfords organisation, or in some other way?
6.15 a.m.
In this way, as we pointed out on the previous Amendment, the Commission will not be left with enough vehicles to run any of these services efficiently and economically. It will not have enough vehicles to carry on the Pickfords organisation and other services, or the parcels services and any other adequate services. But if it decides that it is more economical and efficient to run one of these services, it will not be allowed to do so because its hands will be tied by the division between categories which is made so rigid.
We therefore suggest in our Amendments that the flexibility should be far greater. We accept that the vehicles, as regards the special vehicles—that is, those specially constructed to carry abnormal, indivisible loads—and the special vehicles constructed for other than the carriage 1102 of abnormal and indivisible loads, should be restricted to the 13/10ths and that they should not be allowed to increase their number above the 13/10ths, which allows them that 5 per cent. tolerance which the Minister himself has permitted.
But we suggest in our Amendment that the other motor vehicles should be left free. That is to say, if for the abnormal indivisible loads or for the special vehicles the Commission decided to substitute the other motor vehicles—that is, the ordinary load carriers and general haulage vehicles—it should be allowed to do so, provided, of course, that the total did not go beyond the amount which it was permitted. At least, the Commission would not be tied to dividing them into the three categories. It could absorb the first two categories—the abnormal indivisible load carriers and the special vehicles; it could absorb them as ordinary motor vehicles and thereby would have a far greater flexibility. I do not think we are asking too much from the Minister in putting down these Amendments. All we are trying to do is to give the Commission a little more flexibility and enable it to compete on a fairer basis.
There has been some dispute in the other place as to what the Commission wants. I should like the Minister to say what is the attitude of the Commission towards this. In the Lords, the spokesman for the Government stated on several occasions—I recall no fewer than five times in the discussion on this Amendment—that this restriction by categories was acceptable to the Commission, that they favoured it and were satisfied that it would work. The spokesman from the Opposition benches challenged the Minister on this and stated that he had consulted the Commission. Lord Swinton said in one instance that he was informed authoritatively by the Minister that on no occasion had the Commission made any representation to him or given him any information that this division into categories would not work. He was sure that it is acceptable to the Commission, although not as acceptable as having a complete monopoly.
The Opposition made several similar statements on several other occasions in the other place. Our information—this is also stated by our spokesman in the other place—is that the Commission has made it clear to the Minister on more 1103 than one occasion that this strait-jacket Clause was not acceptable to it and could only make it more difficult for it to meet its public transport needs.
We should like to know from the Minister tonight what is the position as regards the Commission in this matter. Did they agree to this rigid Clause which is imposed upon them and this limitation of the number of vehicles and types they will be allowed to operate, or have they made representations to him? We think that the Minister owes it to the House to make this position clear. The Minister earlier indicated that he had something to say on this matter and we look forward to hearing him. During the debate in Committee he stated he would consult the Commission, and he has. We should be informed of the results. I ask the Minister to give due consideration to this Amendment to the Lords Amendment and to tell us why it cannot be accepted, if he is unable to do so.
Why cannot the Commission be given a little more flexibility in this matter? Why must it be so rigid? Why tie the Commission to the same pattern as set in 1948, although there has been substantial change in the industry, in the type of vehicles, and the traffic offering since then?
§ Mr. LindgrenI wish briefly to support the Amendment, mainly because we are anxious to hear the Minister, particularly in regard to the explanation there might be of the statements which, we believe, were incorrectly made in another place; statements which were distinctly misleading to the discussions which took place there.
§ Mr. CallaghanFalse.
§ Mr. LindgrenI prefer to be a little more restrained and class them as misleading.
The whole trend of the Bill is that, deliberately and consciously, there has been a restrictive attitude by the Minister to the Transport Commission, which cramps their style in every activity they might desire to undertake to make the best of the resources still left to them to operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) emphasized, and I do so again, that much has been said about competition. Yet, with 1104 every Lords Amendment brought forward, the Commission, instead of being put in a position in which they can compete, are being placed in one of disadvantage with the free competitors they are operating against. That is not competition.
The Minister is saying there shall be competition, but, as far as the British Transport Commission is concerned, he is saying they shall be put at a disadvantage before they enter into competition with those who are purchasing some of their assets. I hope the Minister's statement will be free, frank, and fully forthcoming.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hopes of both hon. Gentlemen will, I think, be rapidly fulfilled. I shall certainly give some answer on all the points raised, not least on the attitude of the Commission. I hope I may say that it does confront one with problems of some embarrassment, which would be common to any Government, if information or correspondence between the Commission or any similar body and the responsible Minister passes, by some means, into hands other than the Minister's.
I was for a long time chairman of a number of party committees in opposition. It would certainly not have entered my head to acquire correspondence which passed, for example, when I was Chairman of the Conservative Aviation Committee between the Chairman of B.O.A.C. the Chairman of B.E.A., and the noble Lord, who was then the Minister of Civil Aviation. I hope I may be allowed to develop this without any interruption, as I am anxious not to suggest that anyone in this House did set out to acquire any such correspondence. All I know is that some information has reached certain hon. Members of what purports to be the attitude of the Commission to certain aspects of the Bill.
In nationalised organisations, when the chairman may be a member of another place there might be problems—though I must say Lord Hurcomb has been scrupulous from start to finish not to allow his position as a member of the House of Lords to create any embarrassment. Any corporation or nationalised body has a rather difficult political relationship with a Government of the day 1105 who may not approve of the system of nationalisation but, nonetheless, deal with it, and an Opposition which is politically sympathetic to the conception of nationalised corporations, but not responsible from a Ministerial angle for what is happening.
All these things raise problems which, unless there is good taste and discretion shown on all sides, may get us into awkward situations. I thought it necessary to say that at the start.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesThe House will remember that during the debates on the Committee stage of the Bill, on 10th December last the Minister said, in reply to a statement I had made:
I have consulted the Commission and they agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). They would like me to accept the Amendment—Then my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) interrupted and said:We have not consulted them.The Minister then said:There is no reason why hon. Members of the Opposition should not do so …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1953; Vol. 509, c. 470.]The Minister must therefore accept the fact that we are, on his own admission, entitled to consult the Commission, and if information comes our way we are entitled to use it.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am not going back on what I said. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that statement which, for the moment, I had forgotten. But there is a good deal of difference between asking the Commission for some opinion and actually seeing copies of documents which pass between the Commission and responsible Ministers.
§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)We see letters from trade associations.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. Member would be revealing his ignorance of this matter if he compared this matter with letters between trade associations and Members of Parliament.
I am not making a great deal of this, except to say that it would have presented great difficulty unless good taste and discretion were shown, and I have not had the slightest complaint about the 1106 behaviour of the Commission in this or any other matter from start to finish.
§ Mr. CallaghanWe certainly accept the view of the Minister about the delicacy of the relationship between the Minister and the nationalised body, and that the Commission have to be careful in their correspondence. But I would ask him what is his view of the relationship of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill to the House—in this case another place—when he deliberately on five occasions misrepresents the view of the case.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI think it a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait until this story unfolds itself a little further. I am going to pick up certain comments made in another place and relate them to observations made to me by Lord Hurcomb. It would be helpful to hon. Members who do not understand all this if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would restrain his impatience. Otherwise it is liable to put one off one's stride when discussing a matter which does affect the dignity and position of other people, and I am anxious not to give an error of fact or of bad taste in this matter.
6.30 a.m.
There is one other thing I must say which is also relevant to what I am going to say on this Amendment. Earlier in the course of these debates in Parliament, on one occasion I laid in the Library of the House a copy of a confidential communication which I had received from the Commission. I did it for this reason. I was anxious to quote the view of the Commission on a certain matter of strong political and railway importance, the abolition of the Railway Executive.
Lord Hurcomb, who had expressed the view that the Railway Executive should be abolished, said, "If you read any part of my letter about that to the House of Commons I hope you will also read the other paragraphs." I think I started to read the other paragraphs, but there was rather too much, and I said in reply to an interjection that I would lay the letter in the Library. However, I was at pains to say that this must not be taken as a precedent because there is a great deal of confidential correspondence which obviously it would be impossible for any Minister to lay in the Library of the House or before any body, unless it was 1107 sent for in the proper way by a Select Committee or some other proper body.
We are dealing here with Amendments to a Lords Amendment which is itself designed to give greater freedom of choice to the Commission in selecting vehicles which they wish to retain. I was constantly urged to give greater tolerance to the Commission in the vehicles that they could retain, and it was argued that the wording on page 7 of the Bill was unduly rigid and that greater flexibility was needed—the second part of the proviso beginning at line 33 reads:
… the vehicles so made over make up, or would, if all were made over to the same company, make up …In the debate on 9th December, I said I would look again at this to see whether we could not give greater flexibility. We decided on the Amendment on the Order Paper which, after this Amendment has been disposed of, I shall have the pleasure of moving. My Amendment divides up the vehicles into three categories and subjects the Commission to the overall limit of five-fourths with a tolerance of 5 per cent. in each of these categories.The purpose of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman would be to remove ordinary load carriers from the limitations placed on the freedom of choice of the Commission in selecting vehicles up to overall tonnage. The effect, therefore, would be that the 5 per cent. tolerance would apply only to vehicles in our Government Amendment in the categories (a) and (b) and not to the vehicles in category (c). The Commission, therefore, instead of being limited where ordinary load carriers are concerned, to a maximum of 30 per cent—25 per cent. plus 5 per cent.—above the tonnage of this type formerly owned by the railways, could make over for this type of work all the 5,000 vehicles allowed to them.
I have always made it plain from the start that although the Government were anxious to meet the Commission where we were thought to be unduly inflexible, we could not possibly allow the great resources that the Commission will continue to enjoy to be devoted solely to one branch of transport, which would give them a preponderant share in whichever branch they chose to enter, if they chose to devote all their resources to one category.
1108 It was said that we would divide the vehicles which the Commission could retain in three categories, give them flexibility in each category to a limit of 5 per cent.—that is 130 per cent. instead of 125 per cent.—provided the overall figure is not more than 125 per cent. We could not go further than that, or reduce the number of categories to two, or abolish the categories altogether, because then we would find ourselves in one important field of transport, whichever the Commission might choose to make it, faced with a Commission with, in our view, altogether too large a share for the purpose for which the Bill was put forward.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesI know that the Minister wants to be fair. He realises that our Amendment would still limit categories (a) and (b) to 13/10ths. Therefore, they cannot have a preponderance in either of these two categories. They are limited. In the third category which is that of ordinary load carrier, or general haulage, if they put all their vehicles into that, the maximum they could have would be 4.875. If the Commission, which possesses 40,000 vehicles, is left with only that number and all of them are used for general haulage, they will not have a preponderance. The other 35.000 vehicles will have been sold off. In addition there are all these vehicles which possess A and B licences with which they would be competing.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydPerhaps to use the word "preponderance" is an unintentional exaggeration, but they would have an unduly large share which would enable them to have a parcels service without regard to the importance that parcels may have to all sorts of other ordinary road hauliers either in providing material for loads or in making up loads on which so many of them depend. The Government gave a great deal of consideration to this matter and came to the conclusion that it would give them an unduly large share of ordinary load carriers if they decided to put the whole of their allotted amount into that particular category.
I should be misleading the House if I held out any hope that we could vary the proportion of the three categories which are in the Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. CallaghanNot a single concession.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIndeed there has been earlier.
§ Mr. CallaghanOne small one.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydWe might have had another opportunity if we had made more progress. I make no promise in advance, however.
I should like to deal with the attitude of the Commission. Naturally the Commission dislike all restrictions. First, they dislike the dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive, and I should not blame them if I were on the Commission. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to have a Disposal Board. It is asking too much of human nature, however loyal the people might be, that the task of dissolving the Executive should be placed solely in the hands of those who do not want it to happen. They do not like the disappearance of the Road Haulage Executive. They do not like any restriction on the vehicles they are allowed to retain. They want to have the whole 40,000.
§ Mr. PopplewellThey want the same opportunity as private enterprise.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThey will have the same opportunity.
§ Mr. CallaghanNo.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that they will be free to enter into the market subject to the licensing authority, like anybody else.
§ Mr. PopplewellSubject to restriction.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydLike anybody else. I use the words of the hon. Gentleman—subject to the restrictions of the licensing authority. I assure hon. Members that that is right, but I should be straying far away from the Amendment if I dealt with that point in any greater detail.
I was dealing with the attitude of the Commission. They do not like the disappearance of the Road Haulage Executive and they do not like any restriction on the number of vehicles they can retain. That being so, they would dislike most of all really rigid restrictions. They dislike the restrictions which were in the Bill as it left this House on 17th February. On page 7 there are two provisos, and the effect of the second would 1110 be that the vehicles to be retained would, if all were made over to the same company:
make up, a fleet of vehicles comparable, as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.That means that the fleet they retain would have to be comparable so far as possible to the fleets they inherited from the old railway companies. They disliked that very much indeed. To a lesser extent they dislike the tolerance we are now giving them. They think it is an improvement, but they would like to see it go further.On a number of occasions I have explained the reasons why we cannot go further, and I am not misquoting the Commission when I say that they prefer the tolerance we are now giving them to the intolerance—as they thought it—of the Bill as it left the House. They may say that there is a different degree of intolerance but they think the new proposals are an improvement. They took some exception to the suggestion that this tolerance was, in their view, workable. When the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, in another place made certain statements there Lord Hurcomb said that he would be happy if I could make it clear that while the Commission have never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable they had never accepted it as workable.
At that time I had never heard from the Commission that they regarded the suggested tolerance as unworkable, and I felt wholly justified in telling Lord Swinton that that was so. When Lord Hurcomb expressed some disquietude about what Lord Swinton was supposed to have said he agreed that it would fairly reflect his views if I said that up to that point, while it was true that the Commission had never said that it was unworkable, they had never accepted it as workable.
§ Mr. CallaghanWhat was the date of that conversation?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt might have been the 18th or 19th March. I received the letter on the 20th. I cannot be absolutely certain about that date. At any rate, there is no dispute between the two parties concerned. Lord Hurcomb saw me write it out, and he and I have 1111 a mutual confidence. On 19th March. Lord Hurcomb wrote that the Commission do not accept the view that these proposals of the Bill were satisfactory or in any reasonable sense workable, and in a later letter to me he said that what may or may not be practicable in the sense of not being completely impossible may be a matter of opinion; but the implication that the Amendment had ever been regarded by them as entirely workable and extremely acceptable was not correct.
I said I would certainly put that straight, but that if another impression had been given in another place it was entirely my fault because I said—and it was perfectly true when I said it—that the Commission had never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable. I have always said that they disliked any restrictions, but they have never at that time said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable.
I hope that makes the position quite plain, but if anybody wants to create difficulties between the Minister and the Chairman of a large public body I would ask him, if he ever hopes to succeed to the seat of authority again, to remember that he himself will be in a position demanding some delicacy and tact. That might have a certain hampering effect on any observations that hon. Members opposite might wish to make.
I am ready to answer any further questions, within limits, and to deal with the question of the number of vehicles, in each of these categories, that this greater tolerance would allow the Commission to retain, but rather than weary the House with a lot of figures I will wait until I am expressly asked about them.
§ Mr. HargreavesI should like to tell the House what was said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in another place when the Lords Amendment was first moved there. He said—if I may paraphrase it—that he understood that it was not only administratively quite possible, but was extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission. The suggestion for a prescribed form of rigid strait-jacket for the vehicles within the control of the Commission was not pressed, and the whole House agreed to 1112 the acceptance of that proposition on the basis of the phrase to which I have drawn the Minister's attention.
I suggest to the Minister that if he had made a statement of that kind in this House, he would have jumped with alacrity to the Box at the first possible opportunity to make clear that he had misled the House and, in some sense, induced the acceptance of an Amendment which otherwise would have been open to very strong criticism. The Minister ought to accept the fact that another place dealt with this Amendment in this particular way by reason of the use of the phrase to which I have called his attention.
§ 6.45 a.m.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIn fairness to Lord Swinton, perhaps I may say a further word. "Administratively possible"—yes. Those in the Ministry of Transport and others with experience in this field are quite satisfied that it is administratively possible. "Extremely acceptable" went a good deal further. It was to put that right that I made the observations I did make. When I first told Lord Swinton that the Commission had never said that this would be unworkable, that was true. While it is true that the Commission had never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable, they had never accepted it as workable.
When this was followed up by a letter in much stronger language from Lord Hurcomb, I should at once have brought it to Lord Swinton's notice. That was my fault. I did not do so, and he did not have an opportunity to put it right. Had he had the opportunity, I know that he would have taken it with alacrity. I have, as some hon. Members know, a good deal of work, and I thought I would make that quite straight when it came to our own House. I did not think of the awkward situation in which Lord Swinton might have been placed entirely through my error.
§ Mr. CallaghanWith the observations that fell from the Minister in the concluding part of his original speech, I fully agree. Tact is needed in the relationships between Ministers and nationalised industries. It is not a good start to your relationships to assume its working to be inefficient without taking the trouble to 1113 see what they were doing. Nor is it conducive to tactful and good relationships to prepare Bills that deal with their future without consulting those in charge of the nationalised industries, to see what observations they have to make about them.
All these facts I fully concede to the Minister. I am glad that experience of 12 months of office is teaching him that one has to have great regard for human relationships in these matters. While tact is necessary between the Minister and the nationalised industries, that does not mean that legitimate differences that exist between the Ministers and the nationalised industries should be obscured, blurred, or, worse, should be hidden from the public eye by a Minister failing to represent the nationalised industry's point of view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who has spoken and thought a great deal about this problem, has consistently said—I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—that it is the job of nationalised industries and of Ministers to try to live together, and certainly that should be their first consideration, but in the last analysis there is no reason why they should not have differences and should not express those differences. If that doctrine, which has often been enunciated by my right hon. Friend, had been carried out by the Minister fully on this occasion he would not have got into these difficulties with the nationalised industries.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydMay I add one other thing?
§ Mr. CallaghanPerhaps I might finish this, because I am being careful in what I say, as the Minister was trying to be. It should have been the Minister's first duty when there was a substantial difference of opinion between them, which he knew to exist, and which occurred in the Committee stage in another place, to have taken the immediate and first opportunity of correcting it before the matter was raised again at a later stage, that is to say, during the Report stage, and he failed in his duty in not doing that.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI fully recognise that it was my error that it was not corrected in another place, and it was very unfair on Lord Swinton that any other impression should be given. I did tell 1114 Lord Hurcomb myself at the time that I would make quite plain in the House of Commons what his view was. I decided to do that and told Lord Hurcomb I would do it long before the hon. Gentleman asked me across the Table, three weeks ago, whether I would do it. I had already arranged with Lord Hurcomb to do that. I must point out that the Commission, like all other public bodies, have their annual reports in which they are entitled to say what they like, and in which they can make comments on the effect of Government policy on their activities. I do not doubt that the report of the Commission will have some reference to this Bill.
§ Mr. CallaghanThat, of course, is true, but I do not think it will help the statement of the Commission's case, if the Minister fails to represent them, as he admits he has done, if, six months after the Bill is through and has become an Act, they are able to conduct an inquest on it and to say how badly the Minister failed to represent them on this issue. I do not wish to rub this point into the Minister very much, except to say that this is not the first occasion on which there have been allegations and feelings that the Commission's point of view has been inadequately represented by him on this Bill.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydOh, no.
§ Mr. CallaghanOh, yes.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydLord Hurcomb does not say that.
§ Mr. CallaghanI am not saying what Lord Hurcomb has said. I am saying that there is a feeling on this side of the House that we have had to drag things out of the Minister, who has acted with less candour than we would expect, about a body which does not issue its own statement.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI should be very surprised if Lord Hurcomb echoed those views. I am betraying no confidence when I say he has always told me that I have treated him with the greatest candour and frankness, and that I have never hesitated to say, when it seemed appropriate, what his views were. Indeed, at the start of our long debates on the Bill I began by saying, in very rough language, what their general view was about the road haulage proposals as a whole.
§ The Attorney-GeneralWithdraw.
§ Mr. CallaghanI shall do nothing of the sort. The Attorney-General mutters "Withdraw," but there is not the slightest doubt—
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. Gentleman never does. He is never wrong. He never withdraws.
§ Mr. CallaghanAt least, the Minister has admitted that he was wrong this morning, and I am coming on to some of the observations he has made. As the Minister seems inclined to challenge this, I will quote just one other example to him of why the Opposition think he is wrong.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)Surely this is going very wide of the Amendment.
§ Mr. CallaghanNo, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think so.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWell, I think it is.
§ Mr. CallaghanI am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not your view that the Minister should be allowed to make strictures on the conduct of the Opposition, as he did at the beginning of his speech, and the Opposition to be denied the right of replying on this matter.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThis particular point has been discussed for a very long time and it has little to do with the Amendment before us.
§ Mr. CallaghanI very much regret that that view was not expressed earlier, when the Minister started making his speech. It would certainly have made things more easy in one way, although more difficult in another.
What is at stake here is the good faith of the Minister and Lord Swinton in relation to their conduct on this Clause. It would be a great pity if the Amendment we are discussing were to pass from our notice with their good faith still under a cloud on this issue. The Minister has admitted that he was wrong, but that does not remove from our control examination of the problem with which he said he was confronted, namely, the embarrassment of communications passing into hands other than those of Ministers. He was good enough to say that he did not think we set out to get this letter which 1116 was sent to him and of course that is true.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Enfield West (Mr. Ernest Davies) quoted earlier, in response of an earlier exchange during the Committee stage in the House, the Minister said that he was quite ready for the Opposition to ask the Commission what their views were on certain matters and to secure those views. He does not withdraw from that, indeed he has reinforced it. Those views came to the Opposition in the form of a letter that had been sent to the Minister; that I think should not have been done. I think it would have been preferable if that had not been done. I must say I have not seen the letter and no one in this House has seen this letter. It was apparently seen by one of our spokesmen in another place.
I think what the Commission should have done was to have paraphrased the letter they sent to the Minister when they were asked for their views in this matter. Then there would have been no feeling by the Minister that he was being embarrassed in this way. That seems one way in which it could have been done. The alternative, which I prefer, would be that they should issue a public statement and make their position quite clear.
I regret very much that they have not issued a statement on this matter indicating that Lord Swinton, on nine occasions in the House of Lords, denied the accusation that was made that the Commission were not satisfied with what was done. That was, in fact, misleading the House of Lords about the position of the Commission in relation to this Clause in an extremely serious way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) referred to the first statement of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that this Amendment was extremely acceptable. On the next occasion on which he spoke on this subject he said:
I find I was perfectly accurate in the statements.On the next occasion on which he spoke he said that the proposalis acceptable to the Commission.On the fourth occasion he said:I am assured that both the Commission and the Ministry agree that it is … an extremely acceptable variation and measure of tolerance.1117 On the fifth occasion he said:both the Commission and the Ministry are satisfied.Even when we get to the Report stage the noble Lord is still telling the House of Lords, quite wrongly, that the attitude of the Commission is thaton no occasion has the Transport Commission made any representations to him"—the Minister—or given any information to him that this division into categories will not work … I am sure it is acceptable to the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 130–142.]I am sorry, that was during the Committee stage. I ask the Minister, what remedy does he think a nationalised industry ought to have in circumstances such as these, where their view has been so completely misrepresented? I am certain that the noble Lords in another place who pressed the Government on this matter because they had asked the Commission for their views and had been acquainted with their views were doing a public service by digging out the real facts. I much regret that it took so much prising before we could get the facts from the Minister for the first time today.Let us remember that this issue was originally raised in the Lords on 10th March, which is nearly six weeks ago; and that it is not until about six weeks later that the Minister thinks it worth while to make a statement.
§ 7.0 a.m.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI told Lord Hurcomb that, at the appropriate moment, at the proper stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, I would make the position clear. Next, the hon. Member asks what remedy the Commission has. That is through the mouth of the Minister, in whose frankness and candour in this field the Commission has every confidence.
§ Mr. CallaghanWhen I referred to the Minister's behaviour on an earlier part of the Bill I was ruled out of order, and I cannot speak of that. But this seems to be a clear case of the Minister being candid six weeks after the event has taken place; and he is candid only at the point where discussion is taken up at seven o'clock in the morning; and, in view of the obvious inaccuracies, the 1118 Minister could have taken an early opportunity of making a statement after Question time, or in response to a Question, instead of allowing this misrepresentation of the Commission's position to go on for five or six weeks.
I would refer to only one other matter, and that is the peculiar utterance of the Minister that the concessions in this Bill are apparently dependent on the Opposition's behaviour.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThat is a breakfast-time joke.
§ Mr. CallaghanThen we must accept his peculiar sense of humour, but some of us take this Bill as a very serious matter. We have been labouring on it for some 12 months trying to knock it into some decent shape, and we believe that our Amendments are worthy of consideration on their merits and that they should be considered in that way.
So far as the nationalised industries are concerned, and in the case of this nationalised industry in particular, the Minister made a singularly unfortunate mistake in the contempt which he expressed for the work they were doing at the beginning of his term of office. For months, without seeing what work they were doing, he made pronouncements about that work, and I say that if he had behaved with more tact at the beginning of his term of office some of the servants of the nationalised industries, and certainly hon. Members of the Opposition would have more regard for his sense of fairness now.
§ Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead)The Minister spent a good deal of time explaining what he thought should be the relationship between nationalised corporate bodies and himself and what he subsequently described as the delicacy of the relationships between boards of nationalised industries, and the Opposition and the Minister. I should like just to put this point; if he is so exact as obviously he wishes the House to be on this important matter of the relationship of the nationalised boards and the Minister, then he must accept that there is a greater obligation upon the Minister to make known to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity important matters upon which the House is concerned. Surely that must follow.
1119 My criticism of the Minister on a former occasion was of what I regarded as his failure to do that. I refer in particular to when the Commission had made known their view to the Minister that they were in favour of the abolition of the Railway Executive, and that information was withheld from the House by the Minister for a very long time. The Minister will not deny that, because it is a simple statement of fact. Therefore, does he not accept the view that when bodies like the Transport Commission tell him of important matters, such as their view on the abolition of the Railway Executive, there is an obligation on him to make it known to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydMost certainly not. I am at present deeply engaged in talks with members of the Commission in regard to railway reorganisation and, on the assumption that the Bill becomes law, on how the part of the Bill relating to decentralisation of the railways is to be carried out. Is it seriously suggested that I should, from day to day, convey to the House of Commons the views of the Commission in advance of their making a decision on them? There are many things which this affects, and no Minister could conduct his Department under any such ludicrous obligation.
Mr. CollideSurely the right hon. Gentleman does not seriously say that to the House. He knows perfectly well that the Bill contains a provision that when the Commission prepare their scheme, it has to be laid before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "When it is ready."] Exactly; when it is ready. No one would expect the Minister to come to the House and tell us what all his conversations are with the Commission. The Minister knows me well enough to know that I should not suggest such a thing. But when the Commission tell him such a vital matter as that they are in favour of the abolition of the Railway Executive and he knows that that is a matter on which the House is concerned, the obligation was clearly upon him to make it known to the House as early as he possibly could.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI do not wish to delay the House unduly at this early 1120 hour, but this is a matter of some constitutional importance and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, it is a matter in which I have taken some interest.
Two statements by Lord Swinton are of importance in connection with the Amendment which the House is now considering, and I should point out that eight days passed between them. The first was on 10th March, and he said:
Before I accepted this Amendment"—which is commonly known as the "strait-jacket" Clause—I ascertained that it is not only administratively quite possible, but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1168.]Eight days afterwards, when the Minister must have seen the report and other people also must have seen it, he said:My Lords, I do not think the House was in the least misled last time as to what were the facts. I have checked up, and I find that I was perfectly accurate in the statements I made to the Committee—and I am not surprised that I was, because I got them from the admirable Ministry which has supplied me with instructions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 130.]I do not wish to belabour that point too much, because my hon. Friends have dealt with it adequately. But there were eight days between these two statements. It turns out, on the admission of the Minister himself, who has now been very frank about it, that they were both unjustified and that they were not true.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThat is not quite so. I stick to the view that at the time Lord Swinton made his statement the Commission had never said the proposed tolerance was unworkable. My failure was in not passing on the later letter to Lord Swinton so that he could have made a correcting statement.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe statement of the noble Lord devolves, as the extracts go on. He gets a little less extreme as he proceeds and apparently is very gradually moving towards accuracy. But this first statement was not what the Minister said about this matter being workable or not. The Commission was alleged to have said it was not only administratively quite possible, but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission. Eight days afterwards, Lord Swinton reaffirmed this on the authority of this 1121 admirable Ministry. I would not wish to say it was otherwise because I was once Minister of Transport myself. I found it admirable, and I hope it is equally admirable now.
It is profoundly important that there should be a good relationship between the Minister and a public corporation. I agree it is desirable they should work together and that there should be mutual good faith, mutual trust, and mutual co-operation. But when that public authority is being divested of an important part of its undertaking and when limitations are being placed on it, as to how much it can own and how much it can continue to hold, then it is the right of the public authority to let the public know what its views are, just as it is the right of the Minister to let the public know his views.
In the case of the process of putting restrictions upon private enterprise or of taking over their undertakings, they were rightly absolutely free to say what they liked. They have been apparently free to discuss political matters of a further character than that. The Minister was in danger of challenging the right of the public corporations to make their views known. It is in the public interest they should have the right to make them known, and known to Parliament promptly and in good time. Let the discussions be conducted without personal bitterness between the Minister and the public corporations. If the Minister
§ is intending to suppress the views of the public corporations or to discourage them from expressing them, he is acting contrary to the public interest and spirit, and unconstitutionally.
§ There is nothing shocking about occasional differences of views publicly expressed between the Minister and a public corporation, as long as there is mutual courtesy I beg the Minister not to assume there is something wrong if it becomes apparent that he has been inaccurately informed. I hope very much that this will be a lesson to him and his colleagues who deal with these public corporations, including the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, who takes a great deal of interest in these matters, but who does not seem to be very active in the legislative stages. I trust that, in the light of this experience, this kind of incident will not occur again.
§ I think, too, that partly because this Measure has been so rushed all along, perhaps the Minister has not had time to catch up with himself. I hope that the doctrine I have indicated will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because I think the public interest is profoundly involved.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes. 235; Noes, 218.
1125| Division No. 139.] | AYES | [7.15 a.m. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Brooman-White, R. C. | Donner, P. W. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J | Browne, Jack (Govan) | Doughty, C. J. A |
| Arbuthnot, John | Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T | Erroll, F. J. |
| Ashlon, H. (Chelmsford) | Bullard, D. G. | Fell, A. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Bullus, Wing Commander E. E | Finlay, Graeme |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Burden, F. F. A. | Fisher, Nigel |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Campbell, Sir David | Fletcher-Cooke, C. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Carr, Robert | Ford, Mrs. Patricia |
| Barber, Anthony | Cary, Sir Robert | Fort, R. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Channon, H. | Foster, John |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Cole, Norman | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T, D. (Pollok) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Colegate, W. A. | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert | Godber, J. B |
| Birch, Nigel | Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Gough, C. F. H |
| Bishop, F. P. | Cranborne, Viscount | Gower, H. R. |
| Black, C. W. | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Bossom, A. C. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Grimond, J. |
| Bowen, E. R. | Crouch, R. F. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Weslbury) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Davidson, Viscountess | Harden, J. R. E. |
| Braine, B. R. | Deedes, W. F. | Hare, Hon. J. H. |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Digby, S. Wingfield | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Brooke, Henry (Hammtead) | Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) | Maclean, Fitzroy | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. |
| Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) |
| Hay, John | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Scott, R. Donald |
| Heald, Sir Lionel | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Heath, Edward | Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Shepherd, William |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Higgs, J. M. C. | Markham, Major S. F. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
| Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Marples, A. E. | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Maude, Angus | Spenoe, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Holland-Marlin, C. J | Maudling, R. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Hollis, M. C. | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C | Stevens, G. P. |
| Holt, A. F. | Mellor, Sir John | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Hope, Lord John | Molson, A. H. E. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Hornby-Smith, Mist M. P. | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Horobin, I. M. | Mott-Radelyffe, C. E. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Summers, G. S. |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Nicholls, Harmar | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Nicolon, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Nugent, G. R. H. | Thomas, P J. M. (Conway) |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Nutting, Anthony | Thompson, Kenneth (Walten) |
| Hylton-Foster, H B. H. | Oakshott, H. D. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Odey, G. W. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Johnson, Eric (Blaekley) | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Tilney, John |
| Kaberry, D. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Kerr, H. W. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Turton, R. H. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Osborne, C. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Lambton, Viscount | Partridge, E. | Vaugnan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Vosper, D. F. |
| Langford-Hoult, J. A. | Peto, Brig, C. H. M. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Pitman, I. J. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Lindsay, Martin | Powell. J. Enoch | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Linstead, H. N. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Watkinson H A. |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Profumo, J. D. | Wellwood, W. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Raikes, Sir Victor | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Low, A. R. W. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Renton, D. L. M. | Wills, G. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| McAdden, S. J. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Roper, Sir Harold | |
| Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Russell, R. S. | Mrs Studholme and |
| Haclay, Rt. Hon. John | Ryder, Cap. R. E. D. | Mr. T. G. D.Galbraith. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard | Coldrick, W. | Freeman, John (Watford) |
| Albu, A. H. | Collick, P. H. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Cove, W. G. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Craddook, George (Bradford, S.) | Glanville, James. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Crosland, C. A. R. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Baird, J. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Bartley, P. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Grey, C. F. |
| Bence, C. R. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Benson, G. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hale, Leslie |
| Beswiek, F. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Blackburn, F. | Deer, G. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Delargy, H. J. | Hamilton, W. W. |
| Blyton, W.R. | Dodds, N. N. | Hargreaves, A. |
| Boardman, H. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hayman, F. H. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E) |
| Bowles, F. G. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Edelman, M. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Holman, P. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Below) | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Burton, Mist F. E. | Fernyhough, E. | Hoy, J H. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Fienburgh, W. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Finch, H. J. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Carmishael, J. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Hynd, H. (Acorington) |
| Champion, A. J. | Foot, M. M. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Chapman, W. D. | Forman, J. C. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Naal, Harold (Bolsover) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Janner, B. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Oliver, G. H. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Orbach, M. | Sirachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Jenkins, R. H. Stechford) | Oswald, T. | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Padley, W. E. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Paget, R. T. | Swingler, S. T. |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Pannell, Charles | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Pargiter, G. A. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Keenan, W. | Parker, J. | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W | Pearson, A. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Peart, T. F. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Popplewell, E. | Thornton, E. |
| Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Porter, G. | Timmons, J. |
| Lewis, Arthur | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Usborne, H. C. |
| MacColl, J. E. | Proctor, W. T. | Wallace, H. W. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Pryde, D. J. | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| MeInnes, J. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| McLeavy, F. | Rankin, John | West, D. G. |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Reeves, J. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. H. | Raid, William (Camlachie) | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Rhodes, H. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wigg, George |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Manuel, A. C. | Ross, William | Willey, F. T. |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Royle, C. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| Mason, Roy | Shackleton, E. A. A | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Short, E. W. | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Mellish, R. J. | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Monslow, W. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Moody, A. S | Skeffington, A. M. | Yates, V. F. |
| Morley, R. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) | |
| Moyle, A. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mulley, F. W. | Snow, J. W. | Mr. Bowden and |
| Mr. Kenneth Robinson. |
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This matter has been discussed during the debate on the Opposition Amendment. In the interests of all hon. Members I do not think it necessary for me to develop the argument any further.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonThe Minister has stated, in principle, what this Amendment is about. We shall vote against it precisely for the reasons which we have already given.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes. 234; Noes, 216.
1129| Division No. 140.] | AYES | [7.26 a.m. |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Boyle, Sir Edward | Crouch, R. F. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Braine, B. R. | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) | Davidson, Viscountess |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Deedes, W. F. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Digby, S. Wingfield |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Brooman-White, R. C. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Browne, Jack (Govan) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T | Donner, P. W. |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Bullard, D. G. | Doughty, C. J. A |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Bullus, Wing Commander E. E | Erroll, F. J. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Burden, F. F. A. | Fell, A. |
| Barber, Anthony | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Finlay, Graeme |
| Baxter, A. B. | Campbell, Sir David | Fisher, Nigel |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Carr, Robert | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S) | Cary, Sir Robert | Fletcher-Cooke, C. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Channon, H. | Ford, Mrs. Patricia |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Fort, R. |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Foster, John |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Cole, Norman | Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreeambe & Lonsdale) |
| Birch, Nigel | Colegate, W. A. | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert | Gailbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) |
| Black, C. W. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Cranborne, Viscount | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Bowen, E. R. | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Godber, J. B. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Gough, C. F. H. |
| Gower, H. R | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Grimond, J. | McAdden, S. J. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Russell, R. S. |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. |
| Harden, J. R. E. | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. |
| Hare, Hon. J. H. | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) | Maclean, Fitzroy | Scott, R. Donald |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Shepherd, William |
| Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) |
| Hay, John | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Heald, Sir Lionel | Markham, Major S. F. | Soames, Capt. C. |
| Heath, Edward | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Marples, A. E. | Stevens, G. P. |
| Higgs, J. M. C. | Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Maude, Angus | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Maudling, R. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Mellor, Sir John | Studholme, H. G. |
| Holland-Martin, C. J | Molson, A. H. E. | Summers, G. S. |
| Hollis, M. C. | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Holt, A. F. | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Hope, Lord John | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Nicholls, Harmar | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Horobin, I. M | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Nugent, G. R. H. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Nutting, Anthony | Tilney, John |
| Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Oakshott, H. D. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Odey, G. W. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Turton, R. H. |
| Hylton-Foster, H B. H. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Orr. Capt. L. P. S. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Vosper, D. F. |
| Keeling, Sir Edward | Osborne, C. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Partridge, E. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Lambton, Viscount | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Pitman, I. J. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Powell, J. Enoch | Weilwood, W. |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Lindsay, Martin | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Linstead, H. N. | Profumo, J. D. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Raikes, Sir Victor | Wills, G. |
| Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Longden, Gilbert | Rees-Davies, W. R. | |
| Low, A. R. W. | Renton, D. L. M. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard | Carmichael, J. | Fienburgh, W |
| Albu, A. H. | Champion, A. J. | Finch, H. J. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Chapman, W. D. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) |
| Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) | Chetwynd, G. R. | Foot, M. M. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Coldrick, W. | Forman, J. C |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Collick, P. H. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Baird, J. | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Freeman, John (Watford) |
| Bartley, P. | Cove, W. G. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Bence, C. R. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S) | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Crosland, C. A. R. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Benson, G. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Glanville, James |
| Beswick, F. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Blackburn, F. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Grey, C. F. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Boardman, H. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G | Deer, G. | Hale, Leslie |
| Bowden, H. W. | Dodds, N. N. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Bowles, F. G. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich) | Hamilton, W. W |
| Brockway, A. F. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Hannan, W. |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Edelman, M. | Hargreaves, A. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Hayman, F. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Fernyhough, E. | Hewitson, Capt. M |
| Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) | Monslow, W | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Houghton, Douglas | Moody, A. S | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) |
| Hay, J. H. | Morley, R. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) |
| Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Morriton, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Snow, J. W. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Moyle, A | Sorensen, R. W |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Mulley, F. W. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Oliver, G. H | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Orbach, M. | Stress, Dr. Barnett |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A | Oswald, T. | Swingler, S. T |
| Janner, B. | Padley, W. E | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T | Paget, R. T. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpetn) |
| Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Thomas, David (Aberdare) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Pannell, Charles | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Jones. David (Hartlepool) | Pargiter, G. A. | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Parker, J. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Pearson, A. | Thernton, E. |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Pearl, T. F. | Timmons, J. |
| Keenan, W. | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W | Popplewell, E. | Usborne, H. C. |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Porter, G. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lee, Frederiok (Newton) | Prioe, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Proctor, W. T | West, D. G. |
| Lewis, Arthur | Pryde, D. J. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| MacColl, J. E. | Rankln, John | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| McGhee, H. G | Reeves, J. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| McInnes, J. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | Wigg, George |
| McLeavy, F | Rhodes, H. | Wilcock, Group Capt. G. A. B. |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | Willey, F. T. |
| McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Ross, William | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Royle, C. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Manuel, A. C. | Shackleton, E. A. A | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Short, E. W. | Yates, V. F. |
| Mason, Roy | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Younger, Rt. Hon. K |
| Mayhew, C. P | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | |
| Mellish, R. J. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mikardo, Ian | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. Taylor. |
| Mitchison, G. R | Skeffington, A. M. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 44, leave out from "show" to first "and" in line 45, and insert:
the financial results of the activities of the company.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite because the purpose of the Amendment is to limit the amount of information that has to be given by the Commission in its annual report about the financial state and operating activities of the retained companies. I believe that the party opposite considered that when the Bill left this House it left rather too much in the way of responsibility in this matter on the Commission.
Clause 4 deals with retained companies and it says in subsection (3) that the annual statement of the Commission 1130 shall include information as to the activities of these companies and shall be so phrased as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity. It has been pointed out to us, and the Transport Commission have themselves represented, that these words would put a rather onerous burden on the firms, particularly if a strict interpretation should be given to the word "activity."
It is therefore proposed, by this Amendment, to limit the information required to the financial results of the activities of each company as a whole, and not provide for results as between one activity and another. I hope that this will commend itself to the Opposition, because I think it is in line with the view they took when the Bill left this House.
§ Further consideration of Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
§ Lords Amendments to be further considered this day.