TRANSPORT BILL

HC Deb 22 April 1953 vol 514 cc1179-361

Order read for further consideration of Lords Amendments.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I beg to move, "That further con sideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."

As hon. Members opposite are in such good voice, no doubt they will be able to add their contribution to this debate in view of the strange silence that we had from them yesterday. I rise to move this Motion in view of events which have developed since the debate in the House yesterday with regard to the United Dominions Trust. Mr. Gibson Jarvie, commenting, according to "The Times" today, on last night's debate says: The United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister, is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for the specific purpose of financing potential buyers of transport units desirous of getting back into the haulage business.

Hon. Members

Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Callaghan

He goes on to say that: Any directors, representatives or other employees of the United Dominions Trust discussing this matter with potential haulage contractors were merely bringing to their notice facilities which would be available if and when the Transport Bill becomes an Act. We had a long debate yesterday on the United Dominions Trust and its activities in the country. After some remonstration by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the Minister half-heartedly condemned some of the activities of the United Dominions Trust. The part that he half-heartedly condemned was the approach that was being made by members of the United Dominions Trust staff, and indeed by one of their directors, to employees of the Road Haulage Executive in order to in form them of the credit facilities that would be waiting for them when the Bill became law and also, at the same time, to secure such information as they could about the existing activities of the Road Haulage Executive. The second part the Minister half-heartedly condemned.

I want to say to the Minister that, throughout the whole course of our long debate he gave no intimation of any sort that he had anything to do with the United Dominions Trust. He did not intimate to us whether he had any relations with them or not. He certainly did not intimate to us that they were going into the formation of this company with his full knowledge and approval. There fore, I think that it is fitting that the Minister should take the opportunity that is now being provided for him to make an explanation to the House of what consultations, if any, he had with the United Dominions Trust, how far his full knowledge and approval runs of their activities, and whether he was aware of the approaches that were being made to the staff of the Road Haulage Executive.

There is one further question of policy. Yesterday we spent a long time writing into the Bill provisions which were sup posed ostensibly to strengthen the position of the small man in the industry, to pre vent the concentration of the industry into too few hands—or words that were substituted for that particular phrase. At the same time, the Minister told us that he could give no guarantee that once these units were sold to the small man they could not be gathered or amalgamated into larger units. Indeed, he could not give such a guarantee because he knew of the activities of the United Dominions Trust, or, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know, Mr. Gibson Jarvie is wrong when he says that he was acting with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister.

Mr. Speaker

That seems to be a possibility. I am afraid that I could not accept that Motion as it is a dilatory Motion. It means going back to what we discussed yesterday and this morning at some length. Also, because someone says some thing which appears in a newspaper that would not justify me in accepting a Motion to adjourn further consideration of the Lords Amendments. If the hon. Member is raising a point of criticism against the Minister because, if I followed him aright, of some lack of can dour or something of that sort, he should put down a Motion to that effect and have it discussed. He cannot interrupt the proceedings on the Bill on that matter.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

May I very respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that what is now before the House on the initiative of my hon. Friend is a new circumstance, a new fact, a new allegation. The Minister yesterday did not betray any knowledge of the activities of the United Dominions Trust organisation; he certainly did not admit that he had knowledge of what they were doing and that he had given them approval in what they were doing, and this allegation is now made by the chairman of the Trust in "The Times." I submit that this is a new and material consideration, and in the interests of the Minister himself, whose personal honour is involved, and in the interests of the healthiness of our Parliamentary and Governmental life, this matter should be thrashed out.

In fact, when my hon. Friend saw me about the matter earlier, I was in two minds whether to advise him to raise it under Standing Order No. 9; there was something of a case so to do. We do not wish to bring this up merely for the sake of bringing it up; it is strictly relevant to the argument which was adduced yesterday; it is a new factor made on the declaration, not of an irresponsible individual, but of the chairman of the Trust, and I submit that in so far as the personal reputation and honour of the Minister are concerned, it is right and reasonable and is fair to the Minister that we should be able to debate this matter.

Moreover, my Scottish colleagues inform me that a special organisation has been set up in Scotland as well, and I submit that this is a matter of sufficient seriousness for it to be wise to get it cleared up by a suitable Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. Speaker

The business before the House is the consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill which has, apart from these Amendments, already passed both Houses of Parliament. This is not a stage in the Bill. This is the consideration of Amendments to a Bill which has already passed. I do not see how the circumstances alleged by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) affect the business before us today. If there is a matter for criticism arising out of the statement in the news paper on which the hon. Member bases his account, that must be taken up as a separate matter. It does not affect our business today. Therefore, I could not accept that Motion. I can find nothing in the precedents or in the Standing Orders which would entitle me to do so.

Mr. Morrison

There is another point, Mr. Speaker. The first Amendment which I propose to move presently is related to the organised future of the present constituent elements of the Road Haulage Executive; the future of all these units of the Road Haulage Executive is involved. In so far as the United Dominions Trust has been involved in their future, I presume that it will be legitimate to mention it in connection with this new Amendment. I may have to do so, Sir, but I should have thought that it was better and more convenient to clear this concrete issue out of the way.

I say, without any wish to be abusive or unkind but for the sake of the personal reputation of the Minister, that it would be better to deal with this matter ad hoc and clear it out of the way before we come to that Amendment, which is relevant to what happened yesterday and to what is in "The Times" this morning.

Mr. Speaker

In so far as these matters are relevant to any of the Amendments which will come before us in the course of today's discussion, of course they can be mentioned. As regards the second point, namely, that an accusation has been made against the Minister, I would of course allow the Minister, as I would any other hon. Member of the House, to make a personal statement on his own position. I would allow that to any Member of the House whose integrity was impugned even in the slightest degree. So I will give that permission if it is required.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the Ruling which you gave to my right hon. Friend a few minutes ago, you stated that we are dealing with a Bill that has already passed. I want to submit that, no doubt inadvertently, you gave an incorrect statement of the position. The Bill has not passed. It has been given a Second Reading in this House. It has passed through certain proceedings in another place and certain Amendments have been proposed, and the House is now being asked to consider whether discussion of the Bill shall proceed. The Bill has not, therefore, passed. It will not pass until the House has decided one way or the other what it will do with a great many of the Amendments now on the Paper.

I understand that what my right hon. Friend sought to do was to say this: since the matter was last before the House, new facts have come to light which, if they are right—of course, they may be wrong —appear to show that the House is being invited by the Minister to proceed with the discussion of these Amendments on an entirely false basis, the basis that we are proposing to do certain things with what is now national property when, in fact, secretly and without telling the House about it, he has entered into private arrangements with United Dominions Trust in order to deal with these national assets in quite another way than he was inviting the House to deal with them yesterday and will invite the House to deal with them today. Surely the House is entitled to have that matter cleared up before we proceed?

Mr. Speaker

In reply to the first point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), if he consults the Journals of the House for the day on which this Bill was read the Third time here, he will see it entered there as "Read the Third time, and passed." So the Bill has passed this House. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious point. The Bill has also gone to another place and has been amended there, and we are now consider ing Amendments, but what I am anxious to point out to the House is that we are dealing with Lords Amendments, and this is a different position from an ordinary stage in the procedure of a Bill through this House.

We are dealing with a Bill to which, in the main, the House has given its assent. Therefore, our discussion must be relevant to the precise points which are set down for us for our consideration. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention. I think that, in view of the circumstances and what has been said, it would be the general desire of the House to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.

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

Needless to say, I think this will be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am very glad to have this opportunity of making a statement, and I may add that I think it is very unlikely that anything said from the Opposition benches at any time is likely to frighten, shame or embarrass me. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to hear an answer to the very serious charges that have been made, I hope they will allow me to give it. Very strong language has been used about me in comparison with which my rather mild observations were singularly inoffensive. I take it that the particular objection that has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is to a statement issued last night by Mr. Gibson Jarvie, the chairman of the United Dominions Trust, and reported in "The Times" today. I quote from the actual report in "The Times": The United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister"— I take it that the important words are "with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister"— is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for the specific purpose of financing potential buyers of transport units desirous of getting back into the haulage business. I say straight away that that statement of Mr. Gibson Jarvie is absolutely correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Perhaps hon. Members opposite will allow me to develop my argument. It would be a rather novel procedure if very extravagant charges could be made to which the answer was almost inaudible.

If hon. Members objected to this particular machinery—the creation of a special company between the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association to finance the purchase of transport units—they should have objected when, on 5th February, almost every national newspaper carried this news. All that Mr. Gibson Jarvie has done is to say that the creation of this company, involving, as it does, matters of financial consideration, is done with the knowledge and approval of Her Majesty's Ministers.

It seems to me that if hon. Gentlemen would care to turn up the public print of Thursday, 5th February, they would find in almost every newspaper references of this kind: Mr. Jarvie will help set the lorries free. I must confess that I was rather surprised that I was not asked a lot of questions about it then, but it struck me that hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that, this being one of the popular moves to facilitate the discharge of the intentions of the Bill, they would be politically unwise to draw attention to it.

Mr. H. Morrison rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I must finish my sentence. The statement issued by the—

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington) rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the Minister does not give way, it is quite out of order for any other hon. Member to occupy the Floor.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. Is it not well within the traditions of this House that when a Minister is making a statement—even a personal explanation— and something is said by him which appears to be inconsistent—I do not put it higher than that—a question may properly be addressed to him? Is there anything unruly or out of order in that?

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing out of order in that. The point is that it is in the discretion of the hon. Member or the right hon. Member who has the Floor of the House whether or not he gives way, and if he, the Member who has the Floor of the House, does not give way it is quite out of order for any other Member to continue to stand. I would add that we are now dealing with a personal statement, and in my memory of the House it has always been their desire to hear such a statement in silence.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Maldon)

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, with reference to what you have just said, is it not also a tradition of the House—within Rulings given by you and many of your predecessors—that a personal statement should not contain contentious matter?

Mr. Speaker

It should not, as far as it can be avoided; but one must take every case on its merits.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be more convenient for the House if you were now to accept my Motion that further consideration of the Lords Amendments be adjourned, in order that we may debate this matter, instead of the Minister sheltering behind a personal statement?

Mr. Speaker

That is not at all proper. I have already given my reasons why I cannot find myself justified in accepting the hon. Gentleman's Motion. It would be contrary to every precedent and practice of which I am aware. If, when hon. Members hear the Minister's statement—to which they should listen—they are not satisfied with it, they have all the resources of Parliamentary practice at their command to take up the matter again, when it will be the subject of debate. At present the Minister's conduct is not the main subject of debate; it is the Lords Amendments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I was on the point of reading the statement issued on 5th February. I was anxious to present what appears to me to be an absolutely unanswerable case in a connected way. That is why I did not give way to hon. Members opposite. I hope I am known well enough in this House not to be thought unready to give way to hon. Gentlemen from either side of the House, if it is within the rules of order, when I am making a personal statement. When I come to the end of my narrative, I am quite ready to sit down, but in order that it shall be intelligible and to enable hon. Members to come to a fair conclusion on the matter, I thought it better to make my statement in a connected form.

I have drawn attention to the fact that on 5th February almost every newspaper —the "Daily Mail," the "Manchester Guardian," the "News Chronicle," the "Financial Times," "The Times," the "Daily Express" and no doubt many others—carried a statement to this effect. They made their own comments on it, but the statement issued by the Road Haulage Association, Reference R.H./ PR210—from their office on 4th February —Press Notice of the Road Haulage Association—read as follows: Financing the Purchase of Transport Units —Arrangements concluded between the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust. As the result of negotiations by the Road Haulage Association, arrangements have now been made for financial facilities to be made available to purchasers of transport units once the Transport Bill has been passed. The Association and the United Dominions Trust will set up a finance company for the special purpose of providing such facilities. Attractive rates of interest are to be charged on loans for the purchase of buildings and other assets such as vehicles and plant. Subject to the necessary Government consent advances for assets other than buildings will normally be repayable over a period of three to five years; advances specifically for buildings will be repayable over a longer period. The Road Haulage Association understand from inquiries that advances will also be available through other normal channels. When I was asked about the wholly correct and proper activities of the United Dominions Trust in setting up this company in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, and what the Government had done about it, I said that the Government had given no special privileges to the United Dominions Trust in this matter and that it was open, and still is, to any other finance house that cares to make its own arrangement with the Road Haulage Association and gets their consent.

This is a matter over which the Government have no influence, and do not wish to have any influence, or to do anything themselves. I am delighted that the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association have come to this highly sensible arrangement, and no one could conceive that a financial transaction of this kind could possibly be carried out without Government knowledge and approval.

Mr. H. Morrison

Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so yesterday?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Because it is surely self-evident. If it would have been possible under the late Labour Government for that sort of thing to be set up without Government approval, it shows what an extraordinarily incompetent control it was.

In conclusion, I hope I may be pardoned a certain amount of indignation in view of the charges which have been made. I had intended to say that, as far as I could see, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had discovered a mare's nest, but I am quite happy to put myself behind the phrase used by Mr. Gibson Jarvie, "transparent nonsense."

Mr. Shinwell rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

We shall make no progress if hon. Members continue vociferating at each other. Let us take one thing at a time.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not desirable, in the interests of the House—

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

And of the Minister.

Mr. Shinwell

—and of the Minister that the point at issue should be clarified? On 5th February reference was made to this matter. Did he then, when this organisation was created, give his approval to its creation? He has not said so. He said the organisation was established then, but he did not find it necessary to give his approval—not at that time. On 5th February, then, there was not the same full knowledge of and approval given to the creation of the scheme as has now been given. Is that the position? Surely the Minister can elucidate that point, because that is the point at issue. Why did he not yesterday inform the House of what had been done? Why does he now hide behind an ambiguous statement which was made on 5th February?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am quite prepared to answer that. Of course, when we were anxious about the provision of credit facilities, I had to consider in advance—planning ahead is not a bad maxim for a good Government—what would be the best form of providing credit facilities. It was suggested that some structure of this kind would be suitable, and, before the Press announcement was made, naturally full approval both of the Minister of Transport and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—naturally; we do work together nowadays—was given. Hundreds of Questions have been asked since 5th February, and I should have been delighted to answer any one on that particular matter had any hon. Member put it down.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask the Minister why he did not have the candour, when he referred to the United Dominions Trust yesterday, to tell us of his knowledge of these facts? Why did he specifically—I refer to column 898—when he referred to the matter of the Dominions Trust, tell us nothing when he deprecated part of their activities? Why did he not say that he had had consultation with them and that he knew something of what was going on? Why did he not tell us at that stage that he had given his authority and approval to its activities? Secondly, may I ask him why he went to the trouble of writing into the Bill the provisions for no concentration in too few hands when these small companies are obviously going to be no more than the financial marionettes dancing to Mr. Gibson Jarvie's tune?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

There was a slightly new point in something which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. That being so, I am quite prepared to answer it. What I deprecate is using this opportunity of my personal statement and subsequent supplementaries to make other underhand charges against the United Dominions Trust. I did not myself deprecate their activities. What I said was that if they approached the people in the employment of the Road Haulage Executive or visited depots of the Road Haulage Executive, I naturally agreed with the action of the British Transport Commission in saying that visits or inquiries of that kind should be referred first to the Commission and that it would be the Commission's duty to decide whether the inquiry or the visit was entirely proper.

As to why I did not say repeatedly yesterday that the formation of this new company, which is in process of construction, was with full Government approval, it seems to me that it must be a very naive Member of the House of Commons who believes that an organisation of this kind could be set up without Treasury approval.

Mr. H. Morrison

I think I have just one point to raise.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald)

On a point of order. May I have your guidance upon this point, Mr. Speaker? When a personal imputation is made upon the honour of a Member and is shown to be unfounded, is it not in accordance with the traditions of the House and of decency that it should be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker

If I may say so with becoming modesty, I think the discussion we have had shows the wisdom of my original suggestion that if this issue of the Minister's conduct in the matter is to be raised, it should be examined in another way and in another spirit. It is a very serious thing to make charges against any hon. Member. Even the most humble and remote of us have our own feelings in these matters, and I am very anxious to protect Members against imputations which may be harmful or hurtful to them.

That is why I have allowed this discussion to go on, but I suggest to the House, with all the vigour I can, that we ought to proceed with our business. There are obviously two sides to this matter. Evidently what the Minister has said carries conviction with a lot of his Friends, it may be on both sides of the House, but evidently there are some who disagree with him. But how can we settle it now? Let Members think about it and remember that what they are talking about is the conduct of one of themselves.

Mr. Morrison

As I was saying, there is one point upon which I seek enlightenment. If I may say so, I think the Attorney-General has taken on a new function, and if I may give him some advice, as one who has had longer experience, it would be that he should not take on these jobs. This discussion can, of course, proceed under an Amendment or possibly otherwise, and it must continue for everybody's sake, but what I wish to ask the Minister is this: he has apparently agreed that a special arrangement was made—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No.

Mr. Morrison

—with a particular undertaking or company or trust, with his knowledge and approval and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have every right to ask why he did not divulge this yesterday, but I go further than that: I want to know why, when a particular arrangement was made with a particular trust or company and the Road Haulage Association for given ends on an act of public policy of great importance, the House of Commons was not immediately informed. Will the Minister tell us?

4.30 p.m.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. I desire to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Minister of Transport—

Mr. Speaker

In order to save the hon. Member's time, I would point out to him that he is too late for that now. We are already in public business, and a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 must be moved at the commencement of business.

Mr. Silverman

I have difficulty in understanding how I can be too late in asking your leave to move a Motion which I have not yet read out, how I can be too late in asking leave to move when the circumstances—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has sufficiently identified his Motion for my purpose by saying that he is moving it under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Silverman

I fail to understand, Sir, how I can be too late in asking your permission to move that Motion when the Standing Order clearly implies that the Motion must be moved early and when the circumstances which gave rise to it have only just been told to the House by the Minister concerned. I was on my feet in order to move the Motion as soon as the Minister had made his statement and answered supplementary questions with regard to it, and it is a little difficult to see how I could have asked leave earlier. The matter has only just arisen.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member will look at the order of business on page 332 of Erskine May, he will see that after Questions to Ministers come the introduction of new Members, Adjournment Motion under Standing Order No. 9—that is where the hon. Member should come in—and business taken after any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 under which comes Motions for leave of absence, giving notice of Motions and holding of Ballot, Ministerial statements, personal explanations, etc. As a matter of fact, we have entered upon the Orders of the Day, so that the earliest opportunity that the hon. Member has for raising the matter under Standing Order No. 9 is tomorrow.

Mr. Silverman

I do not think many hon. Members have yet realised that we have entered upon the Orders of the Day. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you had ruled that the Motion which preceded entering upon the Orders of the Day was not acceptable to you, and thereupon the Minister proceeded to make a personal statement.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member consults the Order Paper he will see that the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions are set out upon it. The first Order of the Day was Ways and Means [Report]. That we have done. Then there was a second Ways and Means [Report] which we have also done, and brought in the Finance Bill. We have dealt with the University of St. Andrews Bill. Those are all Orders of the Day, and, therefore, we have entered upon them, and a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 is too late today.

Mr. Silverman

I quite realised all the time that the preliminary Orders of the Day had been disposed of, but the Minister has made a personal statement. If I am out of order in seeking to move this Motion merely because the personal statement was made at a time when the Minister had no right to make it, that seems a little hard on me. If we are to treat the Minister's statement as a personal statement, then surely we must treat it as having been made in its proper place. An attempt to move the Adjournment of the House, as under the paragraph from Erskine May to which you drew attention, has to follow statements by Ministers and personal statements, of which this was one. In those circumstances, I again ask that I may be allowed to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker

I must rule against the hon. Member. I have told him so, and I must now ask the House to proceed to the business which is ordered for today. Hon. Members, having heard both sides of this matter, must form their own conclusions on it, and if they desire to proceed with it further they must find a proper occasion. I will ask the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to move the Amendment which stands in his name.

Mr. H. Morrison

On a point of order. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not succeeded in persuading you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9; but you have given your Ruling, and, of course, my hon. Friend and the rest of us accept it. I wonder if the problem could be solved in this way. When I said that the personal honour of the Minister was involved, I meant it. That is not an allegation; that is a question which has to be answered. My hon. Friend is in the same category, and therefore neither he nor I have anything whatever to withdraw.

Would not the best course be for the Chief Whip or some other Minister—the Attorney-General, it may be—to move the Adjournment of the House in order that we may have a brief discussion about it and clear the matter up, as otherwise it will inevitably, and I submit quite properly, come into the discussion on the first Amendment and will confuse the issue? I put it to the Government Front Bench or the Leader of the House to consider whether it would not be wise to move the Adjournment of the House in order to let us have a short exchange and then get back to the Order Paper.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

I thought that this matter would have been settled after the personal statement made by my right hon. Friend. He explained the circumstances of the case and carried the assent certainly of all those who sit on this side of the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible to move the Adjournment of the House for a short time in order that the matter could be further pursued. The Government are quite prepared to move that Motion if, Mr. Speaker, you will accept it.

Mr. Speaker

Very well.

Mr. Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Morrison

Who goes first? [Interruption.] When hon. Members opposite are ready, we will proceed. The only reason I asked "Who goes first?" was in case the Minister wished to re-state his defence. I wish to be fair to him. Let the Attorney-General behave himself and remember that in my experience it is customary for Law Officers of the Crown on the Government Front Bench to remember that they are Law Officers.

The Attorney-General

It is precisely because I am a Law Officer and have the high traditions of the law in my mind that I made the intervention I did about the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison

I am bound to say that, from our short experience of the Attorney-General, who occupies a high tradition as a Law Officer, as a judicial officer and as a high person at the Bar, we in this House regard him more as a politician than as a judicial officer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has rendered a good service, I think, to Parliament and to the community, and I honestly believe that he has rendered a good service to the Minister of Transport, by enabling this matter to be ventilated today. [Interruption.] It does not matter if the Conservative Party have had orders to go out. The House of Commons will be an even more respectable institution without them than with them.

Let us be clear about the events. It is said by the Minister that in the early part of February a statement was made that an arrangement had been reached between the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust whereby acquisitions would be made out of the dissolving road haulage constituent parts of the British Transport Commission. That was all that was said, that some arrangement of that kind had been made, and that they considered it as a commercial and business proposition to be a good and sensible thing.

We live partly in a world of socialised industry and partly in a world of capitalist private enterprise and free competition, and in so far as we live in a world of capitalist free enterprise and competition the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association have, I presume, a right to make certain arrangements. I deny, however, that they have a right to go poking about and messing about with public officers of a public corporation to find out information, as was exposed yesterday.

However, as part of their private enterprise, these two organisations, the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association, got together and decided a certain means whereby units of presently publicly-owned road haulage undertakings can become private property and be used in the competitive world. So far it is understandable, and the propaganda goes on in the Press and can be the subject of public comment and criticism. Yesterday, however, we had a discussion in which my hon. Friends raised the point of this organisation, and the Minister was asked about it, and he said: This is a matter of very considerable importance. I am concerned about the integrity with which these affairs are conducted. Obviously, there is nothing improper in a finance house or a banking house approaching individuals whom they think may be anxious to get credit facilities if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 898.] I cannot quite see that when public property is being sequestrated in the way in which it is under this Bill private enterprise should be rushing in before Parliament has come to a decision, and making necessary arrangements; but in this statement of the Minister yesterday there is not a word to the effect that this action was taken with his knowledge and approval.

I come back to the point I made a little earlier. If it was done with his knowledge and approval, which today he admits, although he admits it only because it is published in the newspapers this morning and he had to say "yes" or "no," why did not the Minister say before that it was with his knowledge and approval? Or did he? I am willing to give way to the Minister if he will tell us he did. But he did not.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I took it that Mr. Gibson Jarvie, being a very intelligent person—[Interruption.] I think people deserve some protection in this House of their good name when a lot of other people attack them in this House under the protection of Privilege. I took it that he knew perfectly well that if the Treasury had not approved of such a company they would have conveyed that to him in some way. It was quite unnecessary to give formal approval. Anybody who has ever taken any part in Government knows that the powers of the Treasury are quite considerable. I do not think I need amplify that. I am willing to deal with any new point that may arise during this short debate.

Mr. Morrison

I am not saying anything upon the qualifications or qualities of Mr. Gibson Jarvie. We know his general outlook upon life. He does positively say in his statement to "The Times" that the United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister, is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for a specific purpose, and so on. That today is admitted to be true by the Minister.

The first point I want to make is that this matter was the subject of substantial challenge yesterday and the Minister did not say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that it was with his specific knowledge and approval. That is the first point.

The second point is even more important. This was an important action of State. It was an important act of policy which the Minister undertook. If a Government, especially when they are handling a Bill of this sort, give their blessing to a particular commercial undertaking, or, rather, to two commercial and financial undertakings, the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association, which Association took part in the last General Election, it makes it all the more important. The whole of the circumstances make it important. It was a decision of policy and an act of State. It is elementary in those circumstances, concerning an important decision of a Minister involving policy of which the House of Commons and the public are not aware, that the first duty of the Minister is to ask himself, "Is it not my duty to inform the House of Commons of this business?" He did not do so.

I think he has been guilty of a grievous indiscretion and a grievous fault, and I submit to him that, in view of this statement by this gentleman, he has to defend himself against the charge that he ought to have made it clear what the position was yesterday, when these matters were up for specific and explicit discussion. The facts should and could have been given to the House. The Minister could have arranged for a Question by one of his hon. Friends or somebody else, and made a statement, and told the House of Commons he had given his particular blessing and approval to this undertaking, and that it was with his knowledge that they were doing it.

Mr. Shinwell

Was it in writing?

Mr. Morrison

Moreover, the question is, as my right hon. Friend says, was it given in writing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I cannot answer that straight away. My formal approval is not necessary, any more than Treasury formal approval. I think it is inconceivable that the formation of a company of this kind could have been carried out against the wishes of the Treasury. Formal approval is not necessary, so I certainly gave nothing in writing, but I am quite prepared in writing to express my delight at the enterprise and initiative shown.

Mr. Morrison

The Minister did say earlier that this course was taken with his knowledge and approval. He now agrees that that is so. What I asked was, as knowledge and approval imply positive things, whether those positive things were given by way of writing, telephone conversation, personal conversation or not. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us in his reply.

The fundamental point is that when a Government Department, on the authority of the Minister, takes an important step in public policy—and this is undoubtedly a very important step; it involves the future of the commercial road service industry up to a point—surely it is elementary that Parliament and the nation should be informed that the Minister has taken that action. That is our complaint; that is the essence of my hon. Friend's criticism; and I think that the Minister really must face up to the apprehensions and tell us why he was not forthcoming with Parliament and the country by telling us what he was doing.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

I should like to remind the House of one or two facts which hon. Members can possibly confirm, as I had to confirm them within the limitations of time, by looking at their pocket books, and they will find that the Report stage of the Transport Bill was considered on 4th, 9th and 10th February. Further, the Third Reading was, I believe, late in February, and the Bill then went to the Lords. As we have already heard, all the material facts relating to the part which the United Dominions Trust is to play—I say, fortunately to play, in order to make this scheme a success—were known to the public and to the Opposition on 5th February.

If the imputation which has been made today had been correct, the moment to have made it would, I suggest, have been at the earliest opportunity when the facts were made public, on 5th February. So far as I am aware, however—and I have attended the debates and followed those in another place—the party opposite, although they passed casual references to the United Dominions Trust, made no specified complaints of the kind which we have heard today and last night. One therefore wonders why this matter was left until this very late stage.

When the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was given the opportunity of expatiating further to us just now, I confess that I found his efforts to be—I hope I am not overstating it—"a damp squib." The truth of the matter is surely that hon. Members opposite are somewhat worried about their performance at all stages of the Transport Bill. They have been running out of ammunition for a decent, sharp, clean fight, ammunition which we are all accustomed to use: so what did they do? They invented a sort of political dumdum bullet and decided to fire it off at my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is an honourable man, in the truest sense of the word. Expressing my opinion, which I have no doubt is that of many other Members—I would say most hon. Members—I have complete confidence in him.

It is a most extraordinary thing that hon. Members, knowing the essential facts, completely failed to use the various opportunities they had of bringing them forward. It was not until last night and today that they did so. Their performance on this Bill has indeed been a poor one. Anyone who listened, as I listened last night and this morning to about two-thirds or three-quarters of the proceedings, was very conscious of the fact that no new constructive arguments whatever were being advanced. We were getting repetition. I am not in any way suggesting that the Chair allowed too much, but I feel sure that the patience of the Chair was very near to being strained. We listened to ceaseless repetition.

I have a strong suspicion that hon. Members opposite, especially perhaps some of those connected with trade unions, were rather shocked to find, in the Easter Recess, that their efforts on this Bill have not been applauded by their own members. During the Recess I addressed a small gathering of British Road Services workers. Most of them, I believe, are accustomed to voting against me, although a few of them perhaps vote for me. Although they had followed the proceedings—they had followed what had been printed in the Press, and I assume that they knew about the United Dominions Trust, for there was no lack of candour whatever on the part of my right hon. Friend, or the Government or of anybody else in this matter—what, very naturally, seemed to worry them, much more than the fact that denationalisation was taking place, although they were mainly against it, was that we should do our best to safeguard their interests.

Within the very generous ambit which hon. Members opposite claimed for themselves in their speeches yesterday there was much moaning about the past and little attention to safeguards for the future. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend is concerned about that, and that his whole conduct of this Bill has been such as to inspire confidence in the minds of everybody, including even the trade unionists, with whom he has been in contact. This is a spurious attempt to dishonour my right hon. Friend, and it is an attempt which must inevitably fail.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I wish to raise just one point, largely in view of the tone of the statement made by the Minister and of the speech made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). While it is possible to make great play with this opportunity, as the hon. Member has done, to discuss whether the trade unionists in the country are behind the Opposition and Parliament in their attitude towards the general purpose or the details of the Bill, that is not the purpose for which the Adjournment was moved.

I wish to address myself seriously to the point with which I and some of my hon. Friends are concerned. That is not necessarily the fact that a buying company has been organised; I do not think that that is the gravamen of the charge made. Quite clearly, if a big operation of this kind is in sight private enterprise will make its preparations and organisation for financing people, for making a maximum profit out of the opportunity presented to it.

5.0 p.m.

What I am concerned about is the simple point that when we debated this matter to a great extent last night and on various other occasions, the Minister gave us clearly to understand, and certainly by repeated implication, that he was almost unaware of the existence of this body and it certainly had no particular facilities from him. He repeatedly said that it had been given no access to the Road Haulage Association or the Transport Commission. That may be true. I am not charging him with misleading the House on that point, but I am unable to reconcile what he said yesterday with what he has said today. It is because of the difference of the information with which the House is provided today that we are concerned about what is going on, and what part the Minister is playing in it.

Yesterday, referring to the question of the United Dominions Trust, he said: It is clearly impossible to make quite certain, in a great change of this kind, that no contacts, which perhaps should not take place in quite the form they do, should be legalised. Later, he said: To go to the offices of an organisation which is not yet dissolved raises quite different considerations, and I think it is quite right that the Transport Commission should look after the interests of their own staff. The Minister confirmed that there was apparently some need for the Transport Commission to protect their staff against these organisations, and he then went on to say: The fact is that they did not prohibit such contacts, but said that any approaches should be referred to headquarters, and I consider that that was the right approach. They could then protect their people when they needed protection.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 890–899.] These are the activities of the organisation in respect of which the Minister, today faced with the exposure that has come out in "The Times," used these words: I am quite prepared to express my delight at the enterprise shown by this organisation. That is what is so disturbing to me and to a great many of my colleagues, and to many hundreds and thousands of transport workers.

What is, in fact, going on? We are fully appreciative of the inevitability, as I said earlier, that private enterprise—I do not want to use unpleasant similes or metaphors—will be gathered together in the camps ready to pounce on the carcase of the transport organisation and to suck out of it whatever may be left. What we are concerned about is the method by which they do it. Clearly, the method by which they do it, protected and approved of by the Minister, and, indeed, applauded with delight by the Minister, is by snooping into offices and depôts—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not intentionally misquote me. I said that I regarded with delight the formation of the company. There is all the difference in the world between being pleased with the formation of the company and taking responsibility for the way in which it carries on its business functions. That is quite a different matter. On that matter, I am quite willing to deal with anything the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Hynd

With all due respect to the Minister, I pay my humble tribute to the forefather of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), and I took down the exact words as a result of the help which I derived from the enterprise of that well-known gentleman. The Minister said: I am quite prepared to express my delight"— not on the formation of the company— but at the enterprise shown by the organisation. These words were used, not about the formation of the company, but the charges levelled from these Front Benches before he used the words about these other activities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Hynd

It is no good the Minister shaking his head. If he looks in HANSARD tomorrow, I think he will find the words exactly as I have repeated them.

Here is an organisation which, whether they are being provided with access or not, are certainly having access to the records and the offices of the Road Haulage Executive and of the Transport Commission. They are, by the Minister's own implied admission, in one case here, apparently threatening members of the staff or undertaking whatever activities the Minister means, in respect of the staff, who, in the Minister's own words, require the protection of the Transport Commission. If there is not something for the Minister to answer in regard to the delight which he feels that this kind of activity is going on and has his apparent approval, there is the fact that he did not give us any of this information yesterday. We have heard from him today about his delighted approval of the enterprise of this organisation in carrying out their activities, and if it had not been for publication in "The Times," and the fact that this matter was raised in the House this morning, we should have been left entirely in the dark as to what was going on.

After the explanation we have had from the Minister, I am very much still in the dark, as many hundreds and thousands outside the House will be. I am very concerned as to what is the sinister activity going on behind the cover of this organisation with the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend agreed to move the Adjournment of the House. There was no need for it and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who spoke first, knows that there was no need for it.

To understand what is going on, we have to recognise the background against which this debate is taking place today. Right from the last Election, when we made it quite clear that we intended to free the road haulage industry, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite made it equally clear that they intended to resist it with all the means at their disposal, and they have made it clear now that they intend to resist it, whether the means be clean or unclean.

The whole purpose of the exchanges which had taken place over the last hour is merely to use up Parliamentary time to frustrate decisions. All that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends intend to do is to waste time and filibuster. The only reason that I am on my feet now is to say that I am, personally, very sorry indeed that in order to carry out their political intentions hon. Members opposite had to descend to the depth of besmirching the Minister and businessmen outside this House. All the evidence that we have had so far has made it perfectly clear to any reasonably-minded person that there is no foundation at all for the implied charges which have come from the other side of the House. I think that the description which has already been given to it, that it is transparent nonsense, is abundantly clear to everybody.

The only point that seemed to be at issue when the question was first raised again today was about what my right hon. Friend said yesterday about his having welcomed this company being set up and the statement made by Mr. Gibson Jarvie that it had his full knowledge and approval. When my right hon. Friend answered that, I should have thought that that would have ended the matter. He reminded us that all the details of these transactions have been published in the public Press in detail so long ago as 5th February. The very fact that Ministers read the newspapers and admitted having done so shows that it must have been within their knowledge. The fact that they have taken no steps to stop it shows that it had their approval. So far, the Minister was quite right in welcoming this company setting up the organisation which they said they were going to do.

We have said that we want to denationalise this industry; we have said we welcome people purchasing these lorries to run under private enterprise. If we say that and mean it, of course we welcome efforts made in a legal way to enable that to happen. I do not see any difference between this financial company being set up to encourage people to buy lorries and a building society encouraging people to purchase houses.

All I say now to hon. Members opposite is that their intentions are perfectly clear. They intend to use every effort, as I said, whether it is clean or unclean, and to waste Parliamentary time. I ask them if they intend to continue their resistance, to do it in a Parliamentary manner. I am asking—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

On a point of order. Is not this debate fully in order and according to the facilities given by Mr. Speaker? Is it in order for an hon. Member to question the validity of this debate and its being in order in accordance with the decision of Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Nicholls

I am certainly not questioning the validity of your conduct of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but express my personal regret that my right hon. Friend moved the Adjournment.

Mr. Thomas

I put a clear point of order about the imputation and allegation made by the hon. Member against the conduct of this debate. That point has not been dealt with. The point of order is that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) made the imputation that the facilities given to the House to debate this question were the result of something underhand on the part of Her Majesty's Opposition. If that is so, it is obvious that Mr. Speaker himself has wrongly advised or facilitated the proceedings of the House to enable this debate to proceed. What is the opinion of the Chair in regard to that imputation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The Leader of the House moved the Adjournment and it was understood and we are now having a debate. The hon. Member began his speech by saying that he did not agree with his right hon. Friend and he is entitled to say so.

Mr. Nicholls

My final words are—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles)

On a point of order. The real difficulty is that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) is making very objectionable allegations that the Opposition are using methods "clean and unclean," apparently with the approval of the Chair. I think the hon. Member should be asked to withdraw that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If I hear anything which I think should be withdrawn, I shall be very quick to ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr. MacMillan

May I have your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to say that the Opposition in raising this matter today are using methods "clean and unclean" under Parliamentary procedure and with the approval, therefore, of the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The word "unclean" is not a forbidden Parliamentary word.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Further to that point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), in his most objectionable and quite irrelevant speech, saying that the debate had taken place entirely because of filibustering tactics of the Opposition. That means that Mr. Speaker, when he allowed it, connived at the filibustering tactics alleged by the hon. Member. I think the hon. Member ought to be asked to withdraw and we ought not to be objected to such an objectionable discourse as we have had from the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I understand that "filibustering" is another word for obstruction and it is not out of order to accuse a person of obstructing.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook (Halifax)

Was not the relevant suggestion that this debate was not only filibustering, but unparliamentary? This debate has taken place on a Motion moved from the Government Front Bench with the permission of Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to declare a Motion consented to and acquiesced in by Mr. Speaker as un-Parliamentary?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would be absurd to declare it un-Parliamentary because we are in Parliament now.

Mr. H. Morrison

I hope I am in order, I am not sure. I did say at the beginning of this debate that this might be a short debate on the Motion for the Adjournment and I want to be perfectly fair about it. I think that if we can make progress and bring it towards an end that would be wise. If one persuades the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment on the basis of a short debate, I think that honourably one may abide by that agreement. There can be room for discussion at other times and I suggest that we might make progress. I think that the Minister could make some observations and my hon. Friend might say something afterwards.

Mr. Nicholls

In acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), all I wish to say on the further proceedings on this Bill is this: by all means let the Opposition press their Amendments with all the vigour they can, but I appeal to them to try not to besmirch the good name of people outside this House behind the privilege we have here. My final word is to my right hon. Friend and is that his reputation as a Minister has been enhanced by the dignity and vigour he has shown.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I made a speech lasting about a quarter of an hour on this matter some time ago. I then told the whole story and I have very little I can add. I should like to make one or two short observations. There is, of course, a clear distinction between approving the formation of a new company like this by regarding it with formal approval as consistent with Government policy, and approving every action that may be taken by one of the parties to such a new company.

As for the second consideration—any action that may be taken—as I said yesterday and repeat today, I think that the Commission, quite rightly, said that if approaches are made to their staff about visits to their depots and kindred matters they should be referred to their headquarters. This is the answer to the hon. Member for Atttercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), and what I had in mind when I said that in a change of this kind there might be contacts taking place from time to time—perhaps it was not in that form of words, but to that effect—and that things of that sort should be examined by the headquarters of the Road Haulage Executive who would then give advice to their own servants. I repeat that I think they have acted with complete propriety in this matter.

As I said before, this statement was issued on 4th February. It was published in the national Press on 5th February. Anybody who wanted to ask me questions could have done so at any time. We actually had the Report stage of the Transport Bill on the very day—4th February—when the statement was first issued. No doubt it was on the Table on 5th February, when it appeared in all the national newspapers and we were debating it for the whole day on Report. Then we had another day, I think the 19th, when the matter was once more ventilated.

My formal approval is not required, but I am delighted at the action taken which in the view of the Government, and, naturally, in the view of the Treasury, is fully consistent with Government policy, that action being the formation of a company along the announced lines. I regret very much that the Opposition did not use their opportunities if they wished to do so to challenge something that was known throughout the length and breadth of the country.

One is left with this conclusion that the Opposition are anxious that these national assets should be sold at the greatest possible loss so that they then can say that Her Majesty's Ministers are squandering national property. The answer is that they will not be sold at a national loss. One of the vehicles whereby a good price may well be obtained is this company, and, in conclusion, I should like to say that the United Dominions Trust would have to spend a great deal of money in the market to get the national publicity that the Opposition have given them.

Mr. Callaghan

I am personally much obliged to the Leader of the House for taking the action which he did to develop what I tried to put earlier in the afternoon. I moved the Motion that further consideration of the Lords Amendments should be adjourned, so that the Minister might give certain explanations. I asked him certain questions, which, unfortunately, I was not able to finish because Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom and with complete propriety, decided that he could not allow that particular Motion to continue.

I wish to repeat the questions that I put to the Minister then in order that he may see the situation in which we were and about which I must say I felt very strongly. I was extremely astonished this morning to read in "The Times" a particular statement. Any fair-minded person will understand why I was astonished when I read that article. For several hours yesterday we were having a debate which ranged around the position of the United Dominions Trust. We investigated its financial ramifications and its activities and we commented adversely on some of the things it was doing. In one case we got the Minister halfheartedly to admonish the Trust for what it was doing. Another time he said that he was very concerned about the integrity of these operations. At no time did he breathe as much as a hint to us that there had been any communications or any consultations of any sort between him and this body.

Mr. Cecil Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Is there not this additional point which I think is material, and I am not casting any aspersions either upon the Minister or upon the United Dominions Trust? Did we not write into this Bill yesterday a proviso that the Minister also should be the official arbiter as to which bid shall be accepted for certain transport units? I venture to suggest that that is a very dangerous power for the Minister to take, and it is even more so now when we read of his association with this body.

Mr. Callaghan

I hope the Minister will take note of that point, which certainly has been considered on this side of the House

If I may continue, I want to put this to the Minister. When we have a long debate of this sort in which the operations of this Trust are concerned, does he not think that he has some obligation to inform the House of his relationship, if any, with this particular body? I am sure that most of my hon. Friends saw the announcement in the daily Press on 5th February. I remember reading it myself, and I assumed it was a private venture which was being conducted by Mr. Gibson Jarvie and the Road Haulage Association. I certainly did not think it my duty at that time specifically to press the Minister as to whether this operation had his full knowledge and approval. It seems to me it is the Minister's obligation, where he has given his consent to a course of this sort, that he should at least inform the House on this matter.

I tell the Minister that, as a result of several months' experience, I am rather suspicious of him on these matters and I will say why. In my view, this is the third occasion on which he has been convicted of lack of candour towards the House of Commons. We had an illustration at seven o'clock this morning, which I will not recount now, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) recounted in the course of that debate the third illustration which we have in mind, which was connected with the attitude of the Commission and the Railway Executive.

I am bound to say this to the Minister, with all good temper—and we think that the Prime Minister should know our views on this—that we have had to press the Minister on many occasions to give us information which, in our view, he should have volunteered in order to make the position clear. Perhaps it is wrong to hold that view. I can only tell the House that I genuinely feel it, and, if necessary, I will go into specific illustrations at some length to show why I have these doubts about the Minister's candour.

He is, of course, the prosecuting counsel for this Bill, but he also holds an impartial position to some extent as regards the Commission. I must tell him that we on this side feel that he has failed in his duty throughout the Bill to present the Commission's side of the story. It is with this fact in mind that when I read the account in "The Times" this morning I came to the conclusion, which, in my view, was justified by what the Minister told us, that here was another occasion on which he could have told the House what was happening, on which he had the particulars to tell the House what was happening, and yet he failed to take the opportunity to do so.

It seems to me that this is not the way in which to build up confidence as between two sides of the House when they have to have dealings with each other. Each side has to feel that the other side can be relied upon to give all the story where the facts are in their possession alone. I put it to the Minister that if we are to have a relationship that will at least retain a certain measure of trust between us and belief that the other man is trying to tell the whole story, that he ought to be generous to the point of fault in volunteering information which only he has about these matters. I have asked these questions because the Minister has been convicted of lack of candour on this occasion.

I asked the Minister at the beginning whether it was with his authority that this was done, and the answer is that it was with his authority. I regret that he did not take the many opportunities that were open to him to tell the House so. I asked him, secondly, what were the nature of his consultations, if any—I used the words "if any" when I put my original question—with the United Dominions Trust. We still do not know what consultations, if any, have taken place. We do not know whether it was by correspondence, by way of conversation or whether, in fact, when this appeared in the Press the Minister picked it up and said that this was a very good enterprise that he should support.

It seems to me that the Minister might have taken the opportunity of explaining more exactly what consultations took place between him, the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust on this matter. Let us know where we stand—and I put this question for a particular reason, not for mere reasons of pedantry. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has been keenly interested throughout the whole of these proceedings in ensuring that the small man should be able to re-enter the road haulage industry, and, on re-entering it, that he should not be forced out by large combines. That point was made by the Minister as far as he could yesterday, although he told us then he could give no guarantee as to whether future amalgamations would not take place.

The third question I was putting to the Minister, and which I never finally got out, was a very simple one. What guarantees did he get in the consultations that took place between him, the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust that, in fact, when the Trust had loaned the small men money, and, therefore, they were all indebted to it, with the Trust having a financial control over them, that the Trust would not use its financial position afterwards to force amalgamations by foreclosing on the mortgages?

That is exactly the position that has been envisaged throughout these debates and I put it to the Minister that if he did not get any guarantee on this matter and if he did not enter into consultation on this question, he is putting a large section of the road haulage industry into the power of the financiers, and if he did not get that guarantee it seems to me that he cannot legitimately support the point which he himself wrote into the Bill yesterday.

5.30 p.m.

I think the Minister should have been more careful in the phrases he used about the United Dominions Trust, when we consider the sort of people he is dealing with and their activities in the road haulage depots that we disclosed in the House yesterday. He should have regard to the fact that these people are quite slippery operators—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If that is not the case, I would like to know what is the view of the House about a quotation like this: The fruits of office are sweet, the perquisites are tempting, so the policy of the party in power seems to be, 'Let's grab what we can, when we can, while we can. Let the future, or some other Government when we can hold on no longer, clear up the mess.' Those are the views of Mr. Gibson Jarvie.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

The fruits of office.

Mr. Callaghan

The only thing of which I have accused the Minister in this matter, and of which I still think he is guilty, is a lack of candour in his obligation towards informing the House of matters which are in his knowledge and only in his knowledge. He should take a lesson from this and inform us more fully in the future of the activities in this field.

Mr. Crookshank

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope the House will think that it was worth while having a short debate on this matter. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have stated such case as they felt lay against my right hon. Friend; my right hon. Friend has defended himself, and it is there now in the record for everybody to form his own personal judgment. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me to move the Adjournment Motion he thought the debate would be short. We have had a short debate, and now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I want to honour what was the implied bargain, that this should be a short discussion, but I want to suggest to the House that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury have been consulted about this matter. He did not develop that point. If it is the suggestion that application has been made to the Treasury by this company for new capital, anticipating a decision of the House when this House had not met, then we are entitled, having had the information, to be told the facts. The Minister told us last night that no special facilities had been given to this company. I do not know what the meaning of the word "special" is. If it is that this is the only company given facilities up to now, I should have thought that was special.

Without wishing to prolong this debate, it is to the advantage of this House that we should have the facts before the Motion for the Adjournment is withdrawn, otherwise we shall be bound to be referring to it continually in the debate on the Lords Amendments, when it will be appropriate and relevant. The House is entitled to hear what the Treasury had to do with this matter, whether the Treasury was consulted jointly with the Ministry, what meetings were held and when, and what promises have been given.

Mr. H. Morrison

I feel that my personal honour is involved. I asked the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment of the House in order that the matter might be ventilated briefly and reasonably shortly. I am a former Leader of the House and I know what risks the Leader of the House can run by moving the Adjournment. Having done that, we must keep the bargain and I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has raised a perfectly fair point, that it would be well for him to put a Question on the Order Paper to the Chancellor and thereby follow it up. But, having sought the Adjournment on the basis of that understanding, and the right hon. Gentleman having given way, it is fair that we should now let the Motion be withdrawn by leave of the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Without wishing to delay the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—I want to ask a question. If we agree to the Adjournment Motion being withdrawn, does that not imply that we accept the explanation? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Will it be quite clear that any consent to the withdrawal involves no acceptance of the explanation, which we regard as utterly unsatisfactory?

Mr. Morrison

That question obviously is put to me and I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should put it. We have stated our point of view, we adhere to that point of view, and we may take other opportunities or not. However, we have had the opportunity of stating our point of view and I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should think that on the conclusion of the withdrawal of the Motion for the Adjournment, I am thereby supporting the right hon. Gentleman. I am not doing anything of the kind. However, having got the Adjournment under a certain understanding, I and all my hon. Friends carry the responsibility to uphold that understanding.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I should be the last one who would want in any way to embarrass my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). This, however, is a matter involving the rights of Parliament as against Ministers of the Crown, and before I agree that the Motion for the Adjournment should be withdrawn I want to add to what has been said already. I only do so because I think it is a different point from that which has been mentioned previously.

I rejoice in the fact that the Leader of the House moved the Adjournment so that we might ventilate for a few minutes the conduct of the Minister. Apart altogether from what has been said on the Front Bench about the candour of the Minister, I would with great respect make an observation about what has disturbed me in the revelation made this afternoon and last night. It seems to me inconsistent with the constitutional duty of a Minister of the Crown towards Parliament that in anticipation of the passage of legislation he should conduct private negotiations with a private company on the assumption that the Bill which he has introduced to the House will be passed, either at all or in any particular form.

Ministers of the Crown should remember that their first and primary responsibility is to the House of Commons. They are servants of Parliament, servants of the people. It is contrary to their duty to engage in negotiations with outside interests on the assumption that legislation which they introduce will be passed. If they do engaged in such discussions, it is their paramount duty to disclose those negotiations at every stage during which the legislation they have introduced is being considered in this House. In my view, it is the disregard and neglect by the Minister of that duty which has made it worth while for us to have had this discussion this afternoon.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 6, at end, insert new Clause "A":

Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares

(1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:

Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid.

(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.

In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure, and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.

(3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable in a manner specified in the notice:

Provided that—

1. (a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and
2. (b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares they may, with the approval of the Board, sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.

(5) No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section.

(6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.

Where Scotland is affected, the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before giving any directions under this subsection.

(7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if—

1. (a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;
2. (b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said 1216 section twelve should have effect as respects the company;
3. (c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act 1947, subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorized thereunder and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said First Schedule to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to motor vehicles sold as or as part of transport units shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that—

1. (a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I of the said First Schedule in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;
2. (b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

(9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

1. (a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;
2. (b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, 1217 which has been included in such an A licence otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed therefrom;
3. (c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

(10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as part of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.

(11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

1. (a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and
2. (b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission.
• but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property.

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.

(13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1).

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), after the first "that" to insert: in order to secure a higher price for any property which for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking is held by them or for any other reason. We now come to discuss the Amendments to the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause "A," These are serious Amendments to an important Clause and it is as well that we can discuss these now objectively and in calmer waters now that the other matter has been disposed of. Otherwise, I feel sure that it would have been found relevant to discuss the matter in connection with the Clause and the Amendments which we have on the Order Paper.

I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we can take at the same time the second Amendment, which is really consequential: In subsection (1), line 2, leave out from "that," to "should," in line 3 and insert "such property."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Davies

With the incorporation of the Amendments, the opening lines of the new Clause "A" would read as follows: If it appears to the Commission that in order to secure a higher price for any property which for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking is held by them or for any other reason it is expedient that such property should, instead of being disposed of under section 3 or section 4 of this Act, be disposed of under this section. … The new Clause which was introduced in another place was the result of discussions which we had in Committee and on Report. The proposal that there should be provisions in the Bill for companies being formed prior to disposal, so that business units could be converted into companies and the companies could be disposed of, came from both sides of the House. I recall that the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) was among those on the benches opposite who made this proposal.

The Minister, I think, endeavoured to buy off his hon. Friends by promising that when the Bill went to the other place, a new Clause would be inserted. I hope that this afternoon, differently from yesterday and this morning, we are to hear something from hon. Members opposite and that the hon. Member for Hall Green will let us know how far the new Clause goes to meet the wishes expressed by him during the Committee stage. I have my doubts, in view of some of the statements which were made in the other place by Lord Swinton, that it really meets the purpose which the hon. Member for Hall Green outlined in our earlier debates.

The reason we have put down these Amendments to the Clause is to endeavour to make certain that, in forming the companies and in disposing of them, the Commission shall have the right to decide when it is expedient to form companies. Surely it is the Commission which will be in a better position to know when it is desirable that these transport assets should be converted into companies, and by this means a better price or easier disposal obtained. That explains the purpose of the Clause, and we do not think it should be left as it stands. The fact that there is a possibility of securing a higher price for any property should be an adequate reason for the formation of the company. In its present form, the Clause states: If it … is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard … —that is, in disposing of their property they may form these companies. That brings in the standard, as it were, and the test in addition of securing a higher price.

5.45 p.m.

We consider that the formation of companies is desirable and that the Commission, when it thinks it can obtain a higher price, should have the right to form those companies, because thereby there will be a more orderly disposal of the assets of the road haulage undertakings. It is desirable that the disposal should be orderly, and for two main reasons.

The first is that a continuity of service can be maintained. There is grave danger that if the existing road haulage undertaking is broken up into a series of transport units, as is proposed by the Bill, the continuity of the services, particularly the trunk services, the national network of services, the parcels and smalls division, and so on, will disappear. These services will be disintegrated and broken up, and the transport user will not receive the same economic and efficient comprehensive service as he receives today. If, however, the Commission decided that it was desirable to maintain certain services through the company organisation, by maintaining those services it would obtain a better price for them because they are going concerns with all the goodwill attached.

We put down this test of the higher price for the property, but there are also other reasons why we consider this to be desirable. We are here selling national assets, and this is something of which we have to remind the Minister from time to time. In regard to the disposal of the assets of the Commission, the Minister— almost consistently, I should say—puts the interest of the purchaser before the national interest. He is concerned with providing the purchaser with a business at as low a price or as satisfactory a price to the purchaser as possible, and has little regard to obtaining the highest possible price for these assets, which in the last resort belong to the taxpayer.

It is highly desirable that the test of the highest possible price should be applied in the manner of disposal. These are national assets which belong to the community, and it is for the Commission to decide when a higher price could be obtained. If it considers that a higher price could in fact be obtained, it should have the right to form companies in the way that is suggested. That is one of the main purposes of our two Amendments.

There is one disappointing feature of the new Clause, and one which is relevant to these Amendments. When the Minister accepted in the House the principle of introducing into the Bill machinery for establishing companies as one of the means for disposal of the assets of the existing road haulage undertakings, it is fair to say that he gave to hon. Members on the other side, who favoured this method of disposal, and certainly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side, the impression that this would not be an exceptional means of disposal, but one of two or three different means of disposal.

There would be the transport units which are provided for in Clause 3 (1). There would, of course, be the transfer to companies owned permanently by the Commission in accordance with Clause 4, and there would be the disposal of chattels, and so on, which is provided for in the Bill. There would also be this machinery for disposal through companies. The Minister never gave the House the impression that one of those means would be given preference or priority, and that as between transport units and the company system of disposal there would be no preference. When the Clause was introduced in another place and the debate took place, it was made clear that the Government now considered that the company structure was to be used as an exceptional measure. Viscount Swinton stated in regard to this method of disposal: Its only object is to provide an alternative method of selling a transport unit in what we anticipate will be exceptional cases. I repeat, "exceptional cases." The main method of sale, and certainly, in most cases, the convenient method of sale, will be that which has always been laid down in the Bill. The units will be, for the main part, those most likely to appeal to the potential purchasers. Always in the minds of Ministers responsible for the Bill is the advantage to the potential purchaser; it is the obtaining of the best price, not in the interests of the community, in the national interest, in the public interest, but in the interests of the purchasers and in the interests of the Road Haulage Association.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling)

I do not quite follow the point. Surely if the assets which are to be disposed of are organised in such a way that they will be more attractive to the purchaser, we shall get a better price for them? Are we not in agreement on that?

Mr. Davies

Not entirely. I do not see that that follows. The unit would be more likely to appeal to a potential purchaser if it were made up in such a way that it was possible to sell it at a lower price than it would be if it were organised in such a way that certain essential national services were to be maintained.

Later in his speech, Lord Swinton said: I cannot say how many such cases there will be, but I think one must take it that this method of disposal is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, if these Amendments"— referring to the Amendments moved in another place— … were carried, they would apply only in exceptional cases. But, after all, the main purpose of this Bill is to dispose of these units as units."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1193–4.] Our two Amendments would make this method of disposal not exceptional but on a par with the transport unit method of disposal. We should put this question of price as one of the standards which the Commission would apply in determining whether or not to create companies for disposal. There is another reason we think the Commission should have greater flexibility in the right to form companies far disposal; thereby the interests of the maintenance of the service can be put before the urgency of the disposal of national assets.

Mr. Aubrey Jones (Birmingham, Hall Green)

Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument further, might I put this to him? He has quoted certain passages from the speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I would also refer him to a passage in a speech by the Earl of Selkirk which gives a quite different impression. I will read it: The noble Lord"— that is, a noble Lord of the Opposition— … has asked how often this method"— the companies procedure— … will be used. The Bill is the thing that counts. It makes it quite clear"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We are in the same session. Quotations can only be made from Government pronouncements in another place.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

The noble Lord was speaking for the Government.

Mr. Davies

I believe that the hon. Member for Hall Green is in order. The Earl of Selkirk is a Member of the Government.

Mr. Champion

Surely it is in order to quote a Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I did not realise that a Minister was being quoted. I beg pardon.

Mr. Jones

The noble Lord continued: It makes it quite clear that the initiative comes from the Commission … There is no initiative from Her Majesty's Government at all. It is clear in the Bill. It is not possible for me, except by guessing, to say how much this method will be used. I cannot say more than that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 96.] That is a quite different impression from that which the hon. Gentleman has tried to convey.

Mr. Davies

I am afraid that that is rather typical of the experience that we have had in this House, that in handling the Bill Ministers do not speak with one voice. We have had a lot of experience of that on the Floor of the House during the last 36 hours. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary, during an intervention, had to call upon the Minister to get him out of a hole, and we have had differences between the Attorney-General, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary; and here is an instance of it in another place between Lord Swinton and the Earl of Selkirk.

There are other statements about the exceptional use of this method, and I hope the Economic Secretary will tell us exactly to what extent it is anticipated that this method of disposal will be used, whether the Government are able to assess the extent to which it is considered desirable or likely to use this method. Be that as it may, if accepted, our Amendments would make it certain that it would be used more than it would otherwise be, because we are specific and we write in the standards which should be applied by the Commission when it decides whether or not to form a company, and that concerns a higher price.

During the debate on the remainder of the Lords Amendments and on our Amendments, it is essential that, where it is possible for the Bill, through these Amendments, to be improved to give priority to obtaining the best price for the national assets, that priority should be given. After all, one of the main criticisms of the Bill all the way through has been not only that it brings about de-nationalisation but that it brings about de-nationalisation in a way which will result in a colossal loss to the community, that the manner in which the assets will be disposed of will result in losses to the community and that those losses are, to a large extent, to be met out of a Transport Levy.

I believe that one of the main reasons why the hon. Member for Hall Green and his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) pressed the company method of disposal—"business units," they called it in the first instance— on the Minister was that they thought that thereby the higher price would be obtained and the necessity for the Transport Levy would disappear. We do not say that, through acceptance of these Amendments, the necessity for the Transport Levy would disappear, because we are convinced that as long as the assets are broken up and dissipated there is bound to be a loss in their sale; but we ought to do everything possible to minimise that loss, and we consider that this is one of the ways in which to do it. Therefore, in the interests of the community—that is, in the interests of obtaining the highest possible price for the assets of this great national enterprise—we suggest that the Minister should give serious consideration to the first two Amendments of the many which we suggest should be made to the new Clause proposed in the Lords Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves (Carlisle)

Acceptance of this Amendment would make more attractive and more effective this Clause for the organisation of the sale by means of companies—a Clause to which hon. Members opposite directed our attention in Committee. I think most hon. Members would agree that prospective purchasers of the assets of the road haulage undertaking would find sales of vehicles more attractive than sales of the remaining assets of the organisation, such as the properties or chattels, which is the name the Minister has applied to these other properties. If we accept the principle of the Bill and are determined upon a quick and orderly disposal, obviously the company principle must appeal to us as an efficient and effective way of disposing of the assets.

I still believe that the ideas of the Government expressed in the Bill are entirely wrong and will be to the disadvantage of the industry. However, the House has accepted the principle of the Bill, and long and earnest endeavours have been made in all quarters to improve it, and in my opinion the insertion of this Amendment relating to price would help towards that end. The sale of vehicles is obviously a much better proposition than the sale of the chattels or properties which at present form the undertaking—the buildings, stores, and so on. In order that due consideration shall be given to the price, I believe that this purpose should be an essential part of this proposed Lords Amendment.

It was said earlier that sufficient emphasis was laid in the general purposes of the Bill on the need for obtaining the best possible price, as it was called, and the emphasis was laid rather upon the speed of disposal. We have had many discussions on the means whereby the wishes of the Government might best be achieved. From the outset we feared that if the first emphasis of the Bill was upon speed, it might run through the whole work and purpose of the Bill to the detriment of the need for obtaining the best possible price.

Another point which we ought to bear in mind in considering this company structure organisation has already been touched on. In all our considerations we must remember that, notwithstanding the central purpose of the Bill—the disposal of the road haulage organisation—there is laid upon the Commission the injunction to continue, all the while this disposal is being effected, the services they are at present providing with whatever means are left to them. It is believed that this Lords Amendment will provide a means whereby the assets may be made attractive to the purchaser, and I agree that to some extent that meets the point to which our Amendment calls attention.

But because of the outstanding attraction of the vehicles in these sales, and the fact that they represent less than half the assets for disposal—about 40 per cent.— I wish to reinforce the suggestion that we should endeavour to lay more emphasis upon the company structure of disposal, recognising that wrapping, so to speak, the more attractive 40 per cent. of the assets round the remaining 60 per cent. is a means whereby the sale may be more attractive to the purchaser.

That is something we have rather lost sight of in our discussions. We have regarded this sale as a sale of vehicles, which are commanding a high price because of their scarcity value in the market—vehicles which have an exceptional value to certain operators—forgetting that 60 per cent. of the assets to be disposed of are not vehicles at all. If the sale is to be successful, and if the best price is to be obtained, there must be greater emphasis upon the need for the better use of the company structure in the disposal of the assets, which is what we are after.

The orderly disposal of the assets is also a common aim on both sides, and is bound up with the other factor of the continuance of the services, the duty for which is still laid upon the Commission in the Bill. We cannot get a reasoned, orderly disposal of both kinds of assets— of the vehicles, which are the more attractive, and of the remaining assets, which are possibly less attractive unless bound up with vehicles—with the speed of sale enjoined in the Bill, and at the same time get the continuance of the necessary services in the hands of the Commission with the facilities left to them. Those things must go together in an orderly fashion.

The principle of the company structure seems to be accepted with some reluctance. That principle must be accepted, not as at the lower end of the scale in the disposal of these assets, but as an important matter, because otherwise the nation will not get the best possible price for the assets. I hope, therefore, that whoever replies for the Government will accept what I regard as the best of the differing voices which have expressed the Government's viewpoint in another place on this question of the best use of the company structure and will emphasise its importance.

Mr. Maudling

I venture to intervene at this stage because I think that may be for the convenience of the House. I may be able to indicate that there is rather more community of agreement between the two sides of the House in this matter, though in this case again there is an example of the fundamental difference of principle which divides the House on the question of the organisation of road haulage.

We are not discussing at the moment the main Lords Amendment but the Amendment to it. The Amendment gives to the Commission the opportunity of transferring property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares. The genesis of this was the suggestion emanating from my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) which subsequently received a great deal of support. It may well be in many cases desirable for the assets of the Commission to be disposed of in this fashion rather than in the form of transport units. I think we are all agreed on that.

The Amendment we are now considering seeks to emphasise the point which the Opposition have constantly and rightly emphasised, the importance of securing the highest possible price for any of the Commission's property disposed of under this Bill. For this reason they wish to insert these words which put upon the Commission, in exercising its discretion and taking the initiative, the responsibility of bearing in mind the need to secure a higher price for any property held by them at the present moment for one purpose or another.

But that is already included in the Lords Amendment as it stands. Hon. Members will see that the Commission are to have regard to subsection (3) of Clause 3 which contains two points. First, the Commission shall have regard to the importance of allowing people to enter or re-enter the industry who can operate only on a small scale. It also says: Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price. The Lords Amendment was drafted to lay upon the Commission in the case of the sale through the company structure precisely the same obligation as is already laid upon them in the part of the Bill which has been passed in the case of the transport units. In other words, they have an obligation to make sure they obtain the best possible price. To that extent it provides an answer and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member would be redundant.

6.15 p.m.

There is also this point which I am sure the hon. Member has in mind, that Clause 3 (3) stresses the importance of small units. This is what I was referring to when I said that once again we see emerging a fundamental difference of principle in the organisation of road transport. We believe that the right form of organisation for this industry is the small unit. We believe that is the most efficient form, but I do not wish to enter into the long argument raised by experts from both sides of the House on this subject. I think it sufficient to say that we believe as a matter of cardinal principle that the industry should be organ- ised in small units, which is why we put this proviso in the passage dealing with transport units and in the Lords Amendment dealing with the disposal through companies.

Therefore, in both cases the Commission will have the same obligation, to have regard to what we believe to be the cardinal principle of allowing small units to be formed and the other duty of getting the best possible price in the disposal of the assets.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Does the hon. Gentleman not consider the two points to be inconsistent? Obviously the idea of forming such a company is to make a reasonably large unit for easier disposal, and subsection (3) would not therefore apply to companies. That is one of the reasons we put down our Amendment. We prefer to stress the larger unit in the case of companies while not denying that we may have the smaller units in the other case.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a very important point. By and large, it is true that companies will be the larger units. We agree there should be two methods of disposal of the Commission's assets, one by way of transport units to smaller operators generally and the other through companies to larger operators.

The question the hon Gentleman is asking is what would be the balance between the two. That is not a matter which the Government propose to lay down in the Bill. That matter is left to the Commission and the Disposal Board, subject to the clear principles laid down. The principles are to some extent conflicting, but obviously a balance must be held between the principles we introduced of the small undertakings and the highest possible price. In the light of these principles, it is left to the discretion of the Commission to decide, subject to the approval of the Disposal Board, about the disposal of certain assets in the form of companies rather than of transport units.

I hope I have made our position clear. I felt there was a good area of agreement between us on this matter. Great importance must be attached to getting the highest possible price for the units; but there is also a clear area of disagreement, on which we shall never reach a compromise, about whether the units should be large or small. We believe it to be fundamental to give importance to the small units.

Mr. Davies

Will the hon. Gentleman answer two points which we have been trying to get straight? Would he not agree that it is inconsistent to apply Clause 3 (3) to the company structure, because he himself has admitted that companies obviously will be larger units? Therefore, the standard applying to the small man does not apply to these companies. It is not ruled out, but it does not apply a priori. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him, which, in effect, is whether the statement by Lord Swinton in another place on 10th March, that this form of company structure for disposal would be exceptional, represents Government policy?

Mr. Maudling

I can reply only by leave of the House. Clause 3 (3) would not be applied to the company structure. It would be observed by the Commission in deciding whether to choose the company structure or transport units. There is a distinction which we might discuss at length on another occasion.

On the other point as to whether, in the view of the Government, a greater part of the disposals should be by companies or by transport units, the answer flows from what I have said, that we believe the industry should comprise small units and therefore should be disposed of in transport units. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite point of view. He thinks that emphasis should be on large units. That is a fundamental difference in principle on the whole economics of the transport industry on which I do not think that we shall ever reach agreement.

Mr. Ross

Can we have a direct answer? The noble Lord said in another place that this would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Can the hon. Gentleman expand on that?

Mr. Maudling

I do not see much difference between us. We believe that the major part of the industry should be in small units and, therefore, the disposal should be through transport units and only the minor part should be through the companies. The actual percentages should be determined in our view not in the Bill but at the discretion of the Commission and the Disposal Board.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

The reply of the Economic Secretary encourages me to believe that the Government might accept the Opposition Amendments. The hon. Gentleman did not reply to one specific point about the urgent and paramount need of the Commission being given maximum flexibility. It is hardly necessary to remind the Minister that if and when this Bill becomes an Act he will be almost entirely dependent upon the Commission for its successful implementation.

During earlier debates the Minister said that he was awaiting schemes which would be prepared by experts. When we asked him who the experts were, he had to recognise that they were the very people who are now in charge of the Commission and a number connected with the Railway Executive. It is useless to ask them to make a good job of the Measure if they are to be circumscribed in their opportunities. It is of paramount importance that they should be given the maximum flexibility.

The fundamental difference between us is that the Government favour small units although, judging from the discussion today and yesterday, there is little prospect of the small man getting a foothold in the road haulage industry. He will be able to do so only by the courtesy and at the mercy of the moneylenders. The position is that the small man, if he gets in at all, will soon be swallowed up. But we favour the larger company structure. I remind the Government that the livelihood and well-being of thousands of employees in the industry are absolutely dependent upon the way in which this Bill is implemented.

If the industry is to be split up into hundreds of small units, what prospect is there of the staff and operators maintaining their conditions of service in respect of wages, salaries and general conditions which they have been able to build up during the past four years? The obvious reply will come from the small man that he has not the resources and opportunities which the larger structure had. For that reason, the small men will whittle down the standards of employment which have been won after considerable negotiation during the time the employees have worked under nationalisation.

I submit with all seriousness that the Government might accept our Amend- ments to give the Commission greater flexibility and that they might accept the larger company structure on a broader basis to safeguard the conditions of the employees. The Minister is calling upon the Commission to make proposals and to effect these changes without dislocating our transport services. This was done successfully when the 1947 Act was implemented; but it will not be so easy with this Bill. If the transport services are to be subject to serious dislocation, that will have its repercussions upon our economy and upon the well-being of the people employed in the industry.

I beg the Minister to appreciate the need for flexibility and the provision of an opportunity for these men to work the national trunk services without dislocating the existing transport services. Many men are filled with misgiving. If there is a very large area of agreement between us, as the Economic Secretary said, why cannot the Government accept our suggestion? The hon. Gentleman's most serious criticism of our Amendments was that they are a little redundant. A little redundancy will not hurt at all. I commend the Opposition Amendments.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

I cannot resist, in 30 seconds, giving an additional reason why the Opposition Amendment could not possibly have the effect that is desired. Apart altogether from the cogent reasons offered by the Economic Secretary, there is an inherent contradiction in the Amendment. Besides laying down the criterion of a higher price, it also adds the words: … or for any other reason. If these units are capable of being formed into companies for any other reason, those reasons might include the fact that they are all in the habit of travelling to the North of England, all of a size of 10 tons and all capable of being painted red. If the Commission are to take all these factors into account equally, they cannot possibly give priority to the higher price mentioned.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers (Kensington, North)

I intervene to develop slightly the interesting remark of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. What he said about the principle that divides us was very revealing. We have discussed that principle many times. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if the Government were disposing of a certain unit and they decided to break it up into a number of small lots and sell them to small men, then even if the aggregate of the money received was less than that which was offered for the whole of the unit if it was sold together, the Government would still be prepared to split up the unit. I gather that that is a determining principle. Even if they lose money by selling in small lots to small men they will still operate that policy. Am I right?

Mr. Maudling

That is one of the principles of Clause 3 which is already part of the Bill accepted by the House.

Mr. Rogers

I am glad to have that clear. It demonstrates the fallacy of this 19th century economic theory, which the Government still persist in developing, that the small man in transport is in a superior capacity to small men in any other industry. The whole trend of industry since the Industrial Revolution has been the elimination of the small man. One of the basic principles that human beings discovered after many years of co-existence was that co-operation was the law of life. As machinery in transport developed, we discovered that by co-operation and by the development of living together in industry we could devise systems and operational schemes which would enable us to cut down overhead costs and thus give a better service to the community at a cheaper price.

It is false to say that this argument which applies in general to industry does not apply to road haulage. It does. I guarantee that in disposing of the road haulage section of the activities of the Commission, if the Government are prepared to dispose of it in large lots—using that term in relation to no special number of vehicles at the moment—they will, in the public interest, get a much greater sum of money than they will if they split it up into one- or two-lorry sales.

6.30 p.m.

The businessman who will buy those lorries knows that an operational unit of 100, 200 or 500 vehicles is much more efficient than a collection of vehicles bought in small numbers. He knows that the amount of profit which he can make by buying up 400 or 500 vehicles is much greater in proportion to the overheads than it would be if he bought half a dozen. People like Fisher Renwick and Bouts-Tillotson, before the war, operated on that principle, because from their long experience they knew that the greater their services and the larger the number of lorries at their disposal, the smaller were their overheads, and, therefore, the better the price they could give the customer and, in general, the better the service which they could provide for the community.

If the Government would only recognise that their idea that road haulage is in some way different from the rest of industry throughout the world, and would recognise that the small unit is not more economical than the large one, they would realise that even at this late stage, by abandoning this out-dated idea, they would be doing a great service to the country, which is receiving a rather rough deal under this Bill.

This is a shocking Bill, and I am very sad about it. I think it will wreck a fine transport system, but if we are to have it for the short time that this Government remains in office, obviously we have to accept the principle. If we are to dispose of the road haulage services, I think that the great mass of the people, who in the end have to foot the bill, have a right to expect that as large a sum as possible will be extracted from private enterprise, by fair means and not foul, that is, by means of what the market will offer. If the Government would recognise that they cannot provide a better service except by selling these vehicles in larger groups, and that they will only get a better price in this way, we should have some degree of satisfaction in agreeing to this Lords Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

It is true that the main difference between the two sides of the House is on the question of how this sale of road transport units is to be conducted and what is the best method in the interests of the nation's economy and well-being.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury always makes the position quite clear and leaves nothing ambiguous in his interventions, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary, after whose contributions we do not know where we are. The Economic Secretary made it perfectly clear—and it is important to get it on the record—that in the Clause dealing with the sale of transport units the intentions of the Government are clearly set out. Subsection (3) states: the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale,". That, in itself, is the whole principle to which we are opposed. We say that is wrong. Merely to provide for that, notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, is surely not right. If these people's resources are such that they are not able to give the efficient service which the country has a right to expect, I should have thought that they should not be allowed to operate at the expense of the nation. The whole trouble with nationalised industry is that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Liberal Party as well, regard an industry which is nationalised as being the private concern of the Labour Party, and whatever else they do, they must smash it, hurt it and harm it wherever they can.

We go right back to the principle referred to in the early days of this Bill. What we would have liked, at the very beginning of the progress of this Bill, was an independent inquiry. None of us would have said that that was wrong, and I am certain that, if a Labour Government had been returned to power, we should, without doubt, have inquired into the whole workings of the transport industry to see how it could be improved I am all for it.

What we are trying to do in this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to secure that we get the highest price for these units. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wanted to know what was the definition of the words "for any other reason," but I thought he would understand that we want to get the best price when we are selling these vehicles. We want not only to ensure that the best price is received for them, but that the units can give the service that is required by the people who want to use them, and these are the considerations which should actuate the Disposal Board. In spite of what the Economic Secretary has just said—and I admire him for being straightforward—I hope the Government will come to the view that that is the wish of the country.

Mr. Ross

I do not think we can be very satisfied with what we have heard from the Minister, and we are certainly left with some rather serious questions still to consider, especially when we remember what has been said in another place, where these matters were discussed. For instance, there is still the question of "exceptional cases" to be cleared up, because we are still in doubt as to what that phrase means. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury cannot possibly claim to have made perfectly clear, in both his attempts at explanation, just what is intended by the Government, and it really is a matter of considerable importance.

When Lord Selkirk introduced it on behalf of the Government in another place, he said that the purpose of the new Clause was threefold. First of all, it was to allow people to operate on a very much larger scale. Then the noble Lord said that its purpose was to achieve two things. It would enable the setting up of an organisation which could carry on all services, and secondly, ensure that the service should be taken over without any cessation of operations. These observations were followed up by other noble Lords whose political opinions are not the same as mine, and they were welcomed by them because, they said, by this means they would obviate confusion, inefficiency and the complete lack of efficient road services during the transition period.

If we are to be left with the impression that this is only to operate in exceptional circumstances, it means that only in exceptional circumstances are we going to get well-run, efficient and continuing transport services. By putting on this continued limitation, what the Government are saying is, "We are going to break up this well-run organisation, which is providing efficient and satisfactory services, and we are deliberately going to plump for confusion."

There is another matter which has been referred to here. We put down this Amendment to the Lords Amendment asking that greater consideration should be given to the question of the highest price because of what was said in another place by certain Conservative noble Lords, who recommended this method of transferring national property not only because of its painlessness, but also because it was the most profitable way for the Government to do it, from the point of view of the taxpayer. If we are selling three buses or three lorries, and nothing else, we shall get more or less scrap prices, but if we are selling a business it will attract greater tenders.

The Minister has a very high responsibility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the taxpayer. Judging by all we heard during the Budget debates, and remembering that on the claims we have made for various sections of the community we were told that the money was not there, we must realise that between £30 million and £50 million is at stake in the present case. It is not good enough for the Government to deny us our claims in order to save money, and then to throw away money by denying us efficient transport. We are told that only in exceptional cases shall we get continuity of service. Those are not my words but the words of the noble Lord in introducing this proposal on behalf of the Government. He said: The object of this new scheme is to create an organisation which can carry on a service … keeping the present service going. The object of this structure is to enable an organisation to be built up so that the service can be taken straight over without any cessation of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1187.] I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some clearer idea, and a real lead on this matter. I have listened to the Minister of Transport during the past day and night and I got no clue from him that he is interested in the national well-being. We have just had an amazing demonstration from his hon. Friend, so we fall back upon the Parliamentary Secretary. Here is a great opportunity for him. Let him take an example from Lord Winston—[Interruption.] I am sorry. That is the name of a horse. I meant Lord Swinton. If the underlying principle on which the Government would go to work, and the criterion by which they were willing to judge whether or not this would be used were this, we would gladly accept it: We may find it a useful adjunct to the normal practice of sales of units for cash to have a company structure, so that, in appropriate cases"— not in exceptional cases— a company may be created which owns the vehicles, the garages and other ancillary assets." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953: Vol. 180, c. 1193.] If the Minister is to leave the Commission and the Board to judge the appropriate nature of the cases while he himself is properly going to consult the national well-being and to have regard to his responsibility as Minister of Transport for continuity and efficiency of service, he must stop talking about it as being useful in exceptional cases. Efficiency must not be exceptional. It should be normal.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I am not sure why the small man must be brought into this matter. I never understand who or what the small man is. I should have thought that, like most of us, he spent his life producing things, consuming things, and, from time to time, having some form of recreation. While the small man is producing things, we have to look at him according to the wishes of the people working in the trade. They seem to be about the same size, whether they are working for the Commission, for a large company, or for a small company. Why a man should suddenly become smaller because he gets profit instead of wages is a metaphysical problem that I have never been able to answer, but it lies apparently at the roots of Tory philosophy, a place to which I have never been able to penetrate.

Next we have the small man consuming things—in this particular instance, consuming 'bus services—wanting to be carried about the country or having his goods carried about the country for him. Not every parcel of goods belongs to a very large concern. These services are sometimes used by small men. We might therefore have some regard to the efficiency of the service. This is no place for joking, so we will not say anything about recreation but leave that out this time. We have had the small man as a producer and next as a consumer or user. Why it should be limited to the circumstances of the small proprietor I have never understood and do not understand now.

This is a rather curious piece of Government policy in the matter of selling transport units. The Government are so profoundly penny wise and pound foolish. They go out of their way to propose cuts in adult education, to shut up museums for a day or two and heaven knows what else in the way of petty economies. When it comes to the principle of the matter, as it does in this case, the Government are apparently perfectly willing to sacrifice the best way of getting a good price for public assets to the ideological notion, not of the small man but merely of the small proprietor, who is, after all, rather a different being.

It is worth remembering, when we are considering these Amendments, that the original object of the Clause was to secure a better price. It actually came from the proposals of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) who may be said to be the original father of it and who got a lot of support from this side of the Chamber. He gave his own reasons. He was affected, and rightly so, by the prospective sizes of the transport units. The worse the price we get, under the machinery of the Bill, the longer or the larger the levy. The small man has to be considered from that point of view too.

That was the reason this machinery was put in. It was accepted in principle by the Minister, on Report, though it was not introduced at that stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it amiss if I say that when he replied in Committee to his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, he did not reply at all to this point. Perhaps he did not quite follow it. At any rate, on Report the Minister came along and said he had had talks with the Commission and he told us all about it, quite a lot. He said that the Commission were heartily in favour of this. He said: The Commission have most strongly urged that a limited application of the company principle would not only facilitate disposal but would very much help them in dealing with the highly complicated internal problems."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1933.] I suppose that holds good still. They said: it would help them considerably if there were permissive provision in the Bill for some such company structure. There was also the point that … some such structure might well help the confidence of the staff by identifying the staff with a particular part of an undertaking which was to be disposed of as a whole. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1933–4.] All these are perfectly good reasons, as it seems to me, and they were the Minister's own reasons for introducing this piece of machinery. At that stage, at any rate, there was no question whatever of any conflict of principle about it.

The task of the Commission at that stage was to obtain the best possible price, having regard to the considerations in Clause 3 of the Bill and that, subject to minor considerations, still is their duty with regard to disposal and, of course, the duty of the Board as well. In all the circumstances, I do not understand why a question about the rights or merits or virtues of the small man prevents the Government from accepting this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. This Amendment has a point, but it is a small and limited point. It still makes the general question to be considered by the Commission one of expediency. It leaves open the general grounds for expediency, for instance, the type to which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred a little while ago.

Some of the grounds which the noble Lord gave were quite serious. One might have quite good reasons for a service in some particular area or on some road being in company form. But I should like to give a much simpler example, one which I understand has been given by Government spokesmen in this House. One could easily have a small family business which was in company form before nationalisation. If it is to be given back to the small man, or, in this instance the small family, there is something to be said for using this machinery to do it.

Mr. Maudling

That is precisely the effect of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison

Quite, and if that is so, why should this Clause or this Amendment to the Lords Amendment give us any difficulty whatever, because of what I call the small man philosophy of the party opposite? All that is being done here is to say, "It shall still be a question of general expediency, but we call your attention to one particular point and that is to the securing of higher prices for the property." What is wrong with that? When one is considering the disposal of public property, is the party opposite prepared to say that that is not one of the overriding points? Are hon. Members opposite prepared to say that that was not the point which led the hon. Member for Hall Green to propose this machinery originally?

It was the reason which the hon. Member gave originally and, as I understand it, it was one of the reasons which appealed to the Minister when he accepted the idea in principle. I should have thought that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would have had a special interest in this matter. I cannot understand why he should refuse an Amendment from us which has the limited effect of continuing to direct the Commission and the Board to the need to obtain the highest possible prices for these public assets which they are selling.

I really fail to appreciate what the grounds of refusal can be. It seems to me that this has little or nothing to do with the question whether units which are bought are small or large. This machinery can apply just as much to a small unit as to a large one. It seems to me a complete misconception to refuse this small Amendment to the Lords Amendment on grounds which seem to have very little to do with it.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

I intervene in this debate among experts with some diffidence, but this Amendment to the Lords Amendment seems to me to contain one of the more serious aspects of our opposition to the Bill. I have not joined in the debate with the team of my hon. Friends who have done such excellent service during the discussions of this Bill, but I have spoken on the Bill in the country at great length. One of the charges which I made against the Government was that they seemed to be doing everything they could to prevent our obtaining the maximum price for what they are selling to private owners again.

The Minister, who has done a remarkable job day by day in Committee and all through last night—and I only wish that his abilities were employed in a better cause—could shorten the debate and meet one of our difficulties by accepting this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. From the beginning, by the structure of the Disposal Board and by advertising the fact that British transport was something with no goodwill, by saying again, even during the discussions in the early hours of this morning, that he was selling something which was infinitely inferior to what we know it to be, in all these things, instead of protecting Britain's interest and serving the country as the Minister for a nationalised industry, the right hon. Gentleman has seemed to go out of his way to ensure that the price he secures shall be as low as possible.

Our Amendment is simple. We ask that the powers which this Clause gives shall continue to be powers to secure the highest price for what Britain is selling to private individuals. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should oppose our Amendment.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) raised the question of giving the Commission flexibility. That is important, but it does not arise under this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. The main point was raised by the hon. Member for Kensington,

North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—about the smaller units. One argument is that transport is more efficient in the interests of the whole nation if it is run by small units.

It is because we consider it in the whole national economic interest that transport should be organised largely in small units that we propose that two considerations should be taken into account by the Commission and the Board. The first is small unit organisation, and the second is the securing of the highest possible price. I think that we have covered the question of the highest possible price, and that is why I think that this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is redundant. For that reason and also for the drafting reason which has been mentioned earlier, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 295.

Division No. 142.]	AYES	[7.0 p.m.
Adams, Richard	Crosland, C. A. R.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Albu, A. H.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hamilton, W. W.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hannan, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hargreaves, A.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hastings, S.
Awbery, S. S.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hayman, F. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Balfour, A.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J	Deer, G.	Herbison, Miss M.
Bartley, P.	Delargy, H. J.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Dodds, N. N.	Hobson, C. R.
Bence, C. R.	Donnelly, D. L.	Holman, P.
Benn, Hon. Wedgweed	Driberg, T. E. N.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Benson, G.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Houghton, Douglas
Beswick, F.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hoy, J. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Edelman, M.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Blenkinsop, A.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Boardman, H.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bowden, H. W.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Bowles, F. G.	Fernyhough, E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Fienburgh, W.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Brockway, A. F.	Finch, H. J.	Isaaca, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Janner, B.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Follick, M.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Foot, M. M.	Jeger, George (Goole)
		Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Forman, J. C.	Jonkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Burke, W. A.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Johnsion, Douglas(Paisley)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Freeman, John (Watford)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Butler Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Callaghan L. J.	Gibson C. W	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Carmichael, J.	Glanville, James	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Gooch, E. G.	Keenan W
Champion, A. J.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	King Dr. H. M.
Clunie, J.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Kinley, J.
Coldrick, W.	Grey, C. F.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Collick, P. H.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Cove, W. G.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Lewis, Arthur
Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)	Hale, Leslie	Linderen, G. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Pearson, A.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Logan, D. G.	Peart, T. F.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
MacColl, J. E.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
McGhee, H. G.	Poole, C. C.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
McGovern, J	Popplewell, E	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mclnnes, J.	Porter, G.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
McLeavy, F.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Proctor, W. T.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.	Pryde, D. J.	Thornton, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Thurtle, Ernest
Mainwaring, W. H.	Rankin, John	Timmons, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Reeves, J.	Tomney, F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Turner-Samuels, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Manuel, A. C.	Rhodes, H.	Usborne, H. C.
Mason, Roy	Richards, R.	Viant, S. P.
Mayhew, C. P	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mellish, R. J	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wells, Percy (Faveraham)
Messer, F.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Mikardo, Ian	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	West, D. G.
Monslow, W.	Ross, William	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Moody, A. S.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Morley, R.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Short, E. W.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wigg, George
Mort, D. L.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Moyle, A.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Wilkins, W. A.
Mulley, F. W	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Willey, F. T.
Murray J. D	Skeffington, A. M.	Williams, David (Neath)
Nally, W.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, Rt. Holt. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
O'Brien, T.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Oldfield, W. H.	Snow, J. W.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S.)
Oliver, G. H.	Sorensen, R. W.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Orbach, M.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Oswald, T.	Sparks, J. A.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Padley, W. E.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Paget, R. T.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Wyatt, W. L.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Yates, V. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Pannell, Charles	Stress, Dr. Barnett
Pargiter, G. A.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Parker, J.	Swingler, S. T.	Mr. Royle and Mr. James Johnson.
Paton, J.	Sylvester, G. O.
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Alport, C. J. M.	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Donner, P. W.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Buchan-Hopburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. I	Doughty, C. J. A.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Bullard, D. G.	Drayson, G. B.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Arbuthnot, John	Burden, F. F. A.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Duthie, W. S
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Campbell, Sir David	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. N.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Carr, Robert	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Gary, Sir Robert	Erroll, F. J.
Baldwin, A. E.	Channon, H.	Fell, A.
Banks, Col. C.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Finlay, Graeme
Barber, Anthony	Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Fisher, Nigel
Barlow, Sir John	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Cole, Norman	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Colegate. W. A	Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Fort, R.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Foster, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cranborne, Viscount	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Birch, Nigel	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Bishop, F. P.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Black, C. W.	Crouch, R. F.	Gammans, L. D.
Boothby, R. J. G	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bowen, E. R.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Cuthbert, W. N.	Glyn, Sir Ralph
Boyle, Sir Edward	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Godber, J. B.
Braine, B. R.	Davidson, Viscountess	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Gough, C. F. H.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Deedes, W. F.	Gower, H. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Graham, Sir Fergus

Gridley, Sir Arnold	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Grimond, J.	MoCallum, Major D.	Russell, R. S.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Harden J. R. E.	McKibbin, A. J.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Scott, R. Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maclean, Fitzroy	Shepherd, William
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V.(Macclesfield)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hay, John	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Snadden, W. McN.
Heath, Edward	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Soames, Capt. C
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.	Markham, Major S. F.	Speir, R. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
	Marples, A. E.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Stevens, G. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Maude, Angus	Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Maudling, R.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hollis, M. C.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Holt, A. F.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Storey, S.
Hope, Lord John	Mellor, Sir John	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Horobin, I. M.	Molson, A. H. E.	Studholme H. G.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Monckton, R. Hon. Sir Walter	Summers, G. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J.P. L.(Hereford)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Nicholls, Harmar	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hurd, A. R.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Noble, Cmdr A. H. P	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Nutting, Anthony	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Odey, G. W.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Jennings, R.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Tilney, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Orr, Capt. L, P. S.	Turner, H. F. L.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Turton, R. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Kaberry, D.	Osborne C.	Vane, W. M. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward	Partridge, E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Kerr, H. W.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Vosper, D. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Wade, D. W.
Lambton, Viscount	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Leather, E. H. C.	Pitman, I. J.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Powell, J. Enoch	Watkinson, H. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.	Wellwood, W.
Lindsay, Martin	Profumo, J. D.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Linstead, H. N.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Llewellyn, D. T.	Rayner, Brig. R.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Wills, G.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Renton, D. L. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Longden, Gilbert	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Wood, Hon. R.
Low, A. R. W.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	York, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Robson-Brown, W.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Roper, Sir Harold	Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.

Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out from the third "section," to the first "they."

Clause 3 (3) of the Bill has been referred to previously, and the principle contained therein is that the transport units are to be arranged in such manner that those people who were in the transport industry before shall have an opportunity of returning and that the claims of the small man shall be considered. By deleting that principle from the consideration of the Commission when they are forming these companies we are expressing our point of view that a company structure should be created for the purposes of this Bill.

Accepting the fact that under this Bill a large amount of the road transport of the Commission must be transferred to private enterprise, we are now accepting a proposal which was first put forward by an hon. Member opposite, who said that the company structure was a convenient method of dealing with this matter. We do not think that it should be confined to small lots and that is why we have put down this Amendment.

By creating a company structure we can do a great deal to preserve the wonderful organisation created by the Road Haulage Executive. In my view, this is the most important aspect of this Bill. We want to preserve, as far as possible, the structure of the Road Haulage Executive, which serves the community in such a marvellous way, which has been spoken of so highly by the traders and is regarded by the workers as essential.

I would draw the attention of the House to the dangerous times in which we live. While the international tension has been somewhat relieved we must never forget that we may be landed in an emergency. When the Government were faced with such an emergency in 1939 their first action was to create, from the small units which the Economic Secretary seems to hold dear to his heart —though I cannot understand why he does so on behalf of the Tory Party— a temporary war-time organisation to preserve the national interests and carry out national transport work. We shall be taking a step in the wrong direction if we disband this great organisation.

We now have an opportunity to reconsider this matter. Since this Bill first came before the House there have been many compromises. The right hon. Gentleman was not at that time the Minister of Transport, and he has had some beneficent effect inside the Tory Party which has persuaded them to abandon the wildest of their schemes. The first scheme was that all road transport should be taken away from the Commission. Since then we have had a compromise. First, the Commission was allowed to retain the Road Transport of the old railway companies. Then, a figure of six-fifths of this was introduced and now it has become five-fourths. That compromise has made a real change, and the Government now have an opportunity to reconsider the principle they adopted with regard to these new companies and making some mitigation of the chaos which they proposed to create.

7.15 p.m.

I do not suppose it is much use for hon. Members on this side of the House to tell them what faces them if they go on with their scheme, but a most interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). He said, on 3rd December, 1952: What worries me is this. If we go ahead, without any precautions of a statutory character introduced into these Clauses, with the sale of these vehicles at the speed which the Minister indicated—he has suggested that they should all be sold by the end of next year and that the 25-mile limit will be removed "— The Minister of Transport interposed to say: At the end of the year after. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire continued: Then I am afraid that we shall be placing upon our roads a volume of traffic and a number of vehicles greater than they are capable of carrying. That is by far the most important point, and it has not been mentioned by either side. Hon. Gentlemen referred all the time to what the market can absorb. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what the roads can carry. That is what worries me and that is the point I wish to put to the Minister. At that stage there was considerable interruption on the part of his hon. Friends and he then did a remarkable thing. Instead of facing hon. Members on this side of the House he turned and faced his hon. Friends and addressed them. He said: My hon. Friend can say that I am talking nonsense until he is black in the face.… I have been told that many times, but I have often proved that it was not so. I say in a friendly spirit that if that happens and if over the next five years we put an absolutely uncontrolled volume of motor vehicles on the roads, then a future Government will have to introduce a Measure for the control of transport far greater than anything the House of Commons has passed so far."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 1591–2.] I ask the Minister of Transport and his hon. Friend to heed the wise words of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire. They do not take much notice of what we say but it behoves them to consider his words, especially as he has pointed out that on many occasions his prophecies have proved correct. One of the benefits of Parliament is that we get very many opportunities of reconsidering matters. A foolish action can be prevented at a very late stage, and it is still not too late for the Government to reconsider the principle which underlies this Bill.

To sell the road transport industry on the basis of small units is economic madness of the most extraordinary character, and I cannot understand how sensible people, in touch with transport experts, can persist in such a proposal as this. In my opinion, the Minister has improved the Bill considerably since he has been in charge of it. The amount of transport left to the Commission makes it possible for them to rub along for a period after this iniquitous action has been taken, but I hope he will consider the situation very carefully. Many big companies were in existence before transport was nationalised and to limit us, as we are limited by the Lords Amendments—if they are carried out literally—to small units, is to go dead against the economic trends of modern industrial civilisation as well as against the interests of the nation.

Why is all this being done? We have heard many eloquent speeches, especially from the Leader of the House, about losses incurred by the Labour Government, especially in connection with groundnuts. I have heard him make many very eloquent speeches on that subject. On one occasion he mentioned the word "bankruptcy" about 25 times in 25 minutes.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing in the Amendment about groundnuts.

Mr. Proctor

I was drawing a comparison, Sir. As a nation, and which the House as a whole was responsible, we went into the groundnuts enterprise as a great adventure and lost many millions of pounds, but the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite are frittering away £50 million of public money, in all probability. This loss is being deliberately incurred for no purpose that I can find. I will not pursue the matter further, but I thought the point was worth making.

Why are we going on with this? I believe that one of the reasons is that it is one of the promises made by the Tory Party at the last General Election. The Prime Minister has insulated himself from public affairs. He has decided to give his colleagues a mandate to denationalise. He does not come here to listen to our debates so that we have no possible means of influencing him, but I have no doubt that he has given them a mandate. I hope that they will try to influence him to reconsider the whole matter and that we shall have another look at the possibility of adopting the company structure in a wider sense. If the proposals suggested by hon. Members opposite were developed, and if we disposed of a very large part of the road transport of the country to private enterprise on the company structure, I believe we could preserve the framework of the organisation which the Road Transport Executive has brought into being throughout the country.

I want to outline a few of the advantages which we should receive. In the first place, we should not lose much money on the transactions. I see that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is in his place and indicates his support; and I hope he will make a speech to prove that we shall not lose money. The present anticipation of the Government is that they will lose anything between £25 million and £50 million. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kidderminster will suggest that if we adopt the company structure outlined in the Bill, with proper modifications which we suggest, we shall not lose any money at all. What a wonderful thing that would be! What a relief for the local authorities who are struggling with the problem of how they will pay the Transport Levy. What a wonderful consideration for all those people who will be compelled to pay the Transport Levy, but will get none of the benefits of the Bill.

If we could dispose of the nationalised transport to some new, great companies on the basis of not losing much money, that would be a great success for the Exchequer and well worth while for the country. I think a mandate could be given to the Transport Commission whereby they could promote these companies in the way indicated in the Lords Amendments and could dispose of the shares. I will make a suggestion which may be developed further by my hon. Friends—that it is not necessary to dispose of the whole of the shares. If the Transport Commission kept a financial interest in these great companies, that would allow them to co-ordinate the companies and to make sure that they started in an efficient manner. We might then have some kind of co-ordination between road and rail through these great companies.

The view which I take is that the future of transport is not on the roads of this country alone and not on the railways alone. The future of transport is in road and rail co-operation, and it is essential that we should keep sufficiently large units in the road transport section to obtain that co-operation between road and rail. It is high time we got the backroom boys to work on the problem of road and rail transport. It does not seem to me beyond the realms of modern ingenuity to be able to transfer a load from the body of a road transport vehicle on to a rail vehicle and to run it to its destination at 40 miles per hour, thus relieving the roads of a great deal of the present congestion.

I appeal to the Minister to take this matter seriously and to have a word with the Prime Minister about whether this idea of a company structure cannot mitigate the evils which otherwise will be done to the community. I believe that along these lines we could set up an efficient transport system, but we cannot do that if we are tied down to small units. There is something laughable about the thought of the Tory Party supporting the small man. As far as I can see, the conspiracy seems to be to create a small man by means of the United Dominions Trust and in various other ways and then to buy him up afterwards. That was done between the wars and it is very likely that the financial sharks will be glad to create those possibilities again and make a double profit.

In the House this afternoon are two of my hon. Friends with whom I was working when I was on the railway system in South Wales. We on this side are here especially for the purpose of looking after the interests of the people. One of the things which breaks my heart is the fact that so little consideration is being given to the man who is to lose his job as a result of this wicked interference with the organisation of transport.

I suggest that it is quite possible that by means of this company structure we can preserve his job for him. It may be that the financial sharks will not make quite as much out of it as otherwise would be the case, but it would be in the interest of the men working on the job. I remind the House of the man who says, "I worked for five years previously for a great transport company and I was taken over by the British Road Services and have worked for them ever since; I have a house and I have children going to a secondary school; I shall be up against it and I shall lose my job as a result of the interference of Parliament." It makes me feel ashamed of the British Constitution that we can do such a thing as lightheartedly as the Tory Party are doing it at present.

7.30 p.m.

The Government ought to take back this matter and look at the interest of the vast number of road transport and railway workers who are to be adversely affected as the result of these activities. The other day one of them said something to me on which, perhaps, hon. Members opposite might ponder a little. I do not know whether I shall be out of order in repeating it. He said, "I do not think that Winston would do this with the miners." An hon. Member opposite said today that we on this side would go to any extreme, clean or unclean, in our opposition to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is really taking the whole Bill now and not addressing his remarks to the Amendment before the House. We have already had the discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Proctor

I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was intending to finish almost on another sentence, but I would point out the very great difficulties under which we labour in regard to this Bill. The Government Guillotined the Bill, and, therefore, we were not allowed full and free discussion when it came before the House.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the merits and demerits of the Guillotine procedure on an earlier stage of this Bill?

Mr. Speaker

It really is not, but, on the other hand, hon. Members can mention it. There is too much general discussion on the merits of the Bill. Hon. Members should bear in mind that the Bill has passed this House and that we cannot go back and do again the business that we have done before. If hon. Members would focus their minds on the Amendment under discussion, I think we should get on better.

Mr. Proctor

I was merely pointing out the great difficulties in which we find ourselves in dealing with this matter, Sir. 'These Lords Amendments which the House is now considering are of a very wide character and contain as much matter, or even more, as many of the Bills which come before us. This proposal to create a company structure to take over and operate the road transport services of this country is a matter of very wide concern. If we allow the Amendments to go through without indicating what we think the Government should do, then it is too late to do anything in the matter. I thought that we might have a fairly wide discussion on this Amendment, in which we seek to do away with the limitation placed on the Transport Commission as regards the small men and to allow a bigger structure.

I have said practically all that I want to say, but I am concerned that my hon. Friends should not be prevented from taking the opportunity of supporting my appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to mend their ways in this respect.

Mr. Hale

I have sought to listen to the very able and moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), which was accompanied by a running commentary from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who we always hear on these topics, even though it is sometimes only sotto voce. He seems to be regarded as the Beau Brummell of the managerial revolution, and no doubt at a later stage we shall hear him addressing us at full length and giving us the benefit of his wisdom.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will not be deterred from listening to him by any feeling of ineffectiveness or lack of knowledge on his part. We on this side always associate the hon. Gentleman with booms rather than slumps, and we shall, therefore, hail him with pleasure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although he may have thought that some of his colleagues did not make any impression on the House yesterday, what they said was not without some effect because I observed from time to time on the face of the Patronage Secretary a look of deep emotion as he listened to some of his colleagues.

Yesterday, I ventured to give the House the benefit of my knowledge upon Amendments I supported, but I have now been called upon to support an Amendment of which I have no understanding at all. In those circumstances, it was quite natural that I should wonder whether I should inflict my observations upon the House. It seems to me that in a House of experts one ought to leave the matter to those who have an understanding of it. But it is still the duty of hon. Members to point out some of the difficulties under which they labour.

We are considering a Lords Amendment of some 3,000 words, running into several pages, which was explained in another place by the Minister concerned in a speech which lasted less than five minutes and occupied one and a quarter columns in the records of the other place. I have read through that speech several times and have tried to understand the scheme proposed, but every time I read it I could not believe it. It seemed so fantastic. This is the scheme which is before the House at the moment.

I am quite sure that at some stage we shall have an explanation from the Minister. I think it right to point out that not only do we have no explanation in the Lords, but we get no explanation in the Commons until all the Amendments to the Lords Amendments are disposed of, so that it is only when it is too late to put the thing right that we are told, what the Clause means and how it is intended to operate.

I feel, therefore, although, as I say, I rose with trepidation and hesitancy and with a certain sense of insufficiency— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am very grateful for the assurances of hon. Members opposite, because at a moment like this I feel fortified more than I usually do by their observations. I am at least capable of knowing what the Amendment means and the effect it will have.

As I understand the proposal, it is that we should take the transport industry of the country—a living, vital link in all our national services—at a time when we are being informed by many Ministers that OUT situation in regard to defence matters, and so on, is rather difficult and that we are facing the possibility of economic crisis and are battling for national existence, and dispose of it on precisely the basis that one disposes of a bankrupt firm. I know I must be wrong about this, and that there must be some other provisions which we shall have fully explained to us later.

As I say, I read the Clause more than once with all the care I could lavish upon it. Perhaps the words of Lord Lucas of Chilworth will bring light to the House, and, therefore. I propose to quote his words.

He said: The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his Second Reading speech, maintained the same point—that there is only one way in which you can sell the bulk of these other assets: by hiving them off into companies, not selling them as chattels. The only way you will get rid of the buildings and depots is by organising limited liability structures and wrapping them round, the kernel of a transport business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1188.]

Mr. Ian Harvey (Harrow, East)

On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to quote at length from discussions which have only recently taken place in another place?

Mr. Speaker

Do I understand that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was quoting a Minister in another place?

Mr. Hale

No, Sir, an Opposition speech in the debate that took place in another place on this very matter we are discussing.

Mr. Speaker

That is not in order. It is only statements by Ministers that may be quoted.

Hon. Members: Paraphrasing.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member is paraphrasing, that is another matter.

Mr. Hale

I apologise, Sir.

Mr. Renton

The Minister overcame this difficulty, Sir, in a manner satisfactory, I think, to the House yesterday by inviting the attention of hon. Members to the columns in the Lords' HANSARD in which statements could be found.

Mr. Hale

I am so inundated with advice that I am in danger of being submerged. Let me remind the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) that only recently the Bar Council made a pronouncement about the tendering of advice to people who have not solicited it.

Mr. Speaker

I deal with points of order, and since I am asked for advice I must reciprocate, and my advice to the hon. Member is that it would be a good thing if he came to the substance of his Amendment.

Mr. Hale

I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I have every intention of doing that, but I wanted to express my regret at unwittingly going outside the rules of order. I explained to you before the difficulty I am in. I was actuated by the noblest of motives. That quotation was so brilliant and unusual that I thought it would be improper of me merely to paraphrase it lest I gave the impression that I had adumbrated it myself. It is precisely because of the difficulty that I have already explained I am labouring under that I went beyond the bounds of order, and the difficulty is of understanding the Clause; and so it is very difficult to know when one is getting out of order in talking about it.

Mr. Speaker

If that is really the difficulty under which the hon. Member is labouring—and I have some sympathy with him in that—I would remind him that he can always fulfil the duty he has undertaken by supporting the Amendment formally.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, and had I thought of that before that would have got me out of my major difficulty, but you will appreciate that having embarked upon an oration, it is practically impossible to close it down halfway. However, I shall try to bring it to a speedy and reasonable conclusion.

The precise proposal of my hon. Friend's Amendment I am now supporting is with regard to Clause 3 (3). If our Amendment to the Lords Amendment were carried the Lords new Clause would read: If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act. be disposed of under this section they may make over that property … Clause 3 (3) of the Bill deals with the determination of what are to be transport units for which persons are invited to tender. It says: In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender … the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision but subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, no transport unit shall, without the approval of the Minister, include more than fifty motor vehicles.… We are now seeking to eliminate the words in the Lords Amendment making reference to that subsection (3) which would not inhibit the Transport Commission from carrying out major operations now envisaged. The difficulty is to envisage this major operation and find out just how it would operate in relation to this limitation.

As I have said, my first reading seemed to indicate that the proposal merely was to take a block of road haulage vehicles, and, presumably, a depot, or a geographical area, and, to paraphrase words used in another place, to "hive it off," and to wrap round the vehicles, assign them to a company to be formed, or for shares of a company to be formed to belong to the Commission, and at some stage by some devious means for those shares to be transferred. I do not think it would be conceived for a moment that the operation could be done having regard to the needs of persons desiring to enter or re-enter the industry without adequate means to do so. I do not think that was meant. What I think was meant was not to have too many hiving off operations. I think that is right. It seems that the Minister and I are in complete agreement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In so far as the hon. Gentleman has read the Clause.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

It is a new Clause of 3,000 words and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to read it to the House now. The difficulty in complying with this requirement of subsection (3) is that those shares would be absolutely dead shares in a company with no live organism of any kind. There is no provision of a managing director; no provision of a board of directors; no provision of a staff of any kind. I do not want to be unfair about this. I want to put this as fairly as I can because I think it is an important matter.

I know it will be said that, of course, there is a staff available. It will be said, "Take a selected area in Ashby de la Zouch or Middle Wallop, or somewhere where there is a centre, and you will see that we propose to establish a fairly large company for this area and that there is available at the moment a staff for the unit." But how long does it remain available?

I can put the matter quite shortly, but I must put it because I know that it may be raised again and I do not want to go over the ground again and again. I am seriously asking for information about this. Are the Commission authorised anywhere to operate those vehicles until they have disposed of the shares, and, if so, how long are they authorised to operate them? It surely is a vital question.

Mr. Maudling

It may be a vital question, but I do not see what it has to do with this particular Amendment.

Mr. Hale

That is most informative of the attitude of the Government on a matter of this kind. I have already pointed out that there is a Lords Amendment 3,000 words long. It is introduced in another place with no adequate explanation. We then, under the curious and archaic rules of this House, have to discuss our Amendments to the Lords Amendment before we have an explanation of the Lords Amendment, and when the Minister is asked a question so that we may be informed, so that we may be enabled to conduct the debate in decency and tolerance, he says, "Oh, no, we are not going to tell you."

He does not even say that he does not know. He says that some time later the information may be forthcoming. Unless there is adequate provision for carrying on this organisation this great national industry will be sold like a bankrupt firm that has closed its doors.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

One of the main purposes of the whole of the proposed company structure is that the Commission can carry on until the moment of sale with those transport units that are com- posed in companies, attracting to themselves traffic, retaining, one hopes, a number of the staff, right up to the moment of sale. I feel that there will be no dislocation, because this would be one way of preventing dislocation. That is why the proposed new Clause has been introduced. I agree that the rules of order of this House make explanations of these Lords Amendments difficult, but that has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Hale

No, but the right hon. Gentleman has now been able to set out the matter and give information we have been asking for for the last quarter of an hour, and he has given it succinctly and informatively. There is only one other piece of information I should like to have. Where, in this Clause, is that authorisation contained; because the Commission are precluded by other Clauses?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

That may be a very proper question, but I do not think that it arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Hale

In the absence of an explanation it is, of course, exceedingly difficult to say precisely what questions do arise on any Amendment. I would remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are discussing an Amendment which is very wide and comprehensive, and which deals with a whole question of the elimination of provisions providing for sale in small units. Therefore, I say, with very great respect to the Chair, that it seems perfectly clear that in those circumstances it would be proper to try to find out what are the terms of operation suggested for the larger units.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would be very proper to find out, but it cannot be found out on this Amendment. It may be done at a later stage; I do not know.

Mr. Hale

If I understand that Ruling, we have to discuss the Lords Amendment, upon which the information is necessary in deciding how to vote, without knowing what the information is, and we have to make up our minds by some curious process of chance. I can at least follow up one or two points. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will make it clear, because I am sure that we shall make more progress if he does. We seem to be getting on very well at the moment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Either I or my hon. Friend will make the point clear when we come to move the Lords Amendment dealing with the setting up of the company structure, but now is not the time.

Mr. Hale

The right hon. Gentleman has given certain information, but I could not really express myself as being under any deep sense of obligation for it. He rose to answer a question I put two or three minutes ago, but not the one I was about to put when I interrupted him. He has said that it is in order for him to get up and tell the House that certain provisions are there, but it would be out of order for him to tell us where they are. That seems to be a somewhat remarkabls attitude, and not quite as co-operative as he sometimes has been.

To understand this it is necessary to have information on the question I have been putting from time to time, namely, whether it is his view that we shall hive off and wrap up these large blocks of vehicles in public companies under terms under which the Transport Commission shall operate to a very considerable extent. To what extent is it his view that the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 3 will be carried out by the Transport Commission in preserving the small unit? What is the proportion? What is the intention? Where can the Transport Commission find out how they do it? Where in the whole of our debates has that information ever been given; or where in the Bill is there a single word which shows how these words can be applied in operation and what they really mean?

That is the dilemma we face, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with great sincerity, that he ought to consider the position in relation to this matter. Already, he is finding inevitable difficulties arising. Probably some unworthy aspersions inevitably arise; I do not know. In this Bill he has placed himself in a position of authority as high in the transport world as any dictator has ever occupied in the political world.

Almost every disputed question goes to the Minister. Many non-disputed questions go to the Minister. He decides, apparently, all questions of how the vehicles are to be disposed of. Apparently, in the absence of any information to the contrary, he is the person who has to decide how many small small units there are to be and how many big small units there are to be, and what areas they are to cover. He is the person who decides how many large organisations are to be hived off and carried on.

The right hon. Gentleman has not yet told us—I understand that we shall be told at the appropriate stage—whether he is the person who authorises how long they carry on, and for how long they could carry on in difficult circumstances. All this he has to decide Ministerially, and to some extent, as he said yesterday, politically, because certain political questions arise, some of them quasi-judicial. At the same time, in another capacity—it may be with complete propriety—he is having to be consulted by and to give certain advice and permission to the very people who will be coming to buy the units off.

This is all very difficult, and I suggest that if, in the light of those observations, we come back to the point to which I was referring, which is the wording of the Amendment, we see that If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking Should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section"— then we leave out the words and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three.… Supposing we do not carry this Amendment, but leave those words as they stand, what does it mean? How do they do it? They have to have regard to the needs of persons who desire to enter or re-enter the industry, and who, because of the inadequacy of their means, are unable to operate units in small sizes. It is intended to apply to the one-vehicle, two-vehicle or three-vehicle operator; it is intended to apply to the genuine small unit operating on its own.

Now, how is it done? Suppose that in the Middle Wallop area there are 250 lorries operated from an organising centre, from a central garage with organising offices. What is to be done? How are they hived off? Are the whole 250 to be wrapped round the kernel of the garage? Is someone to decide that at Little Wallop there shall be five lorries in one small unit, that at Little Hinton there shall be six or seven lorries in another small unit, and that at Tolpuddle there shall be two? Is it to be said then that if 123 lorries are left they shall be hived off?

Mr. Callaghan

Does my hon. Friend not think that the Minister, in view of his continuing interest in the small haulier, will permit him to come along and make favourable opportunities for the cream of the vehicles? When they have been sold off to those road hauliers at ludicrously low prices the rest will probably be left for public consumption in any way the Commission can manage, and at that stage he will ask them to form a company.

Mr. Hale

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think he has got his priorities wrong. The widows and orphans come first, then the person who desires to enter the industry and the person who is in it. First on the list are the widows and orphans. The small haulier who wants to add to his fleet comes second on the list. Third on the list comes the hiving off of the prosperous units, with powers to the Commission for a short period until they can sell, although the Minister is not able to tell us where the power is. Fourth on the list are the Transport Commission and their vehicles which they can retain for operating the national services of the country. Fifth on the list are the chattels, and so on. I think it would be out of order to discuss the chattels, and I do want to keep myself narrowly within the limits of the Amendment.

We are entitled to be told what is the priority at this stage of this Amendment, which deals concisely with the question of the priority of the selling off of the small units. Is the Minister sure? What is to happen first? Are the small units laid off first? If the small units are laid off, are the good lorries or the bad lorries picked out? Are they bound by the geographical considerations which operate now? If the driver is operating from a small yard in Tolpuddle, does he continue to do so? Are they all to be brought into the central organisation and then reallocated on the basis of what it is intended to do? Does the Minister know? We have discussed this matter day after day, column after column.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

He has not got a clue.

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member for Huntingdon seems to indicate that he has some information. If so, I would welcome it, and would be prepared to withdraw perhaps some of the suggestions I have made. Indeed, I am asking for any information I can get.

Mr. Renton

So much of the hon. Gentleman's speech has been out of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This is not the Committee stage of the Bill, so the hon. Member cannot speak twice.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged. I was extending the courtesy of giving way in anticipation that someone was showing a very clear intention of rising. If that source of information is denied to me, I must turn to the Minister again, although without much hope, for information. Has anyone advice to give on this matter? Does anybody know anything about it? After all the United Dominions Trust are entitled to know something if they are to be given all these permissions. They must have some information. Is information being given to these people which is not being given to the House?

Is it true that large organisations are being given additional facilities and are having more capital to invest without knowing what is going to be done, what the properties are, or what the position will be? Is this really suggested? Or is the House being constancy denied information which should be made available to it? No one can suggest that it is not in order to discuss and to ask on this particular Clause, which specially deals with small units, the Minister for all information at this stage. Nor can we go to a Division with any confidence without that information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Member will not intend to proceed to a Division until he has given the Government spokesman an opportunity of saying something.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That information enables me to shorten my remarks which otherwise might have been more extensive. I shall be very grateful indeed if it is the intention of the Government spokesman to make a comprehensive statement on this Amendment, and I shall be most happy to listen to it.

I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House regard this as a matter of real political importance and of real national importance. I do not think— we certainly did not in another place— that we have raised any fundamental objection to the new proposal. Indeed, we see many advantages in it. Everyone knows that, in many circumstances, the small unit in transport is uneconomic. But the whole question of priorities is as vital in this matter as it is vital in almost every political problem. The question of priorities is a matter which affects almost every consideration.

Mr. Renton

On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned perhaps a dozen times that the order of priority is important, and is that not tedious repetition?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is out of order to mention priorities.

Mr. Hale

The Amendment deals with priorities. The whole matter which we are discussing is whether we should give priority to the small unit over the large unit or whether we should not. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I do not recollect having mentioned this question of priorities in any similar connection before in the course of my brief remarks. I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon, in seeking to usurp the privileges of the Chair, is not rendering a very considerable service to the House.

If the Minister will deal with this question we shall be grateful to him. I am sure that he would wish to be a democrat. It is a condemnation of our Parliamentary procedure in a matter of this kind to allow all these proposals to pass from the House without the House being given the opportunity of knowing what is intended, how the machinery is intended to be constructed, by whom it will be directed and in whose interest it will operate. That is the position today after this long debate. We are still being denied vital information.

Mr. Maudling

I will endeavour to satisfy some of the curiosity of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) moved this Amendment in a comprehensive speech which indicated to me, at any rate, that he understood very well the purpose both of the Lords Amendment and of the Amendment which he was moving. I could not help feeling that for once the very acute legal mind of the hon. Member for Oldham. West had not been fully applied to this particular Amendment. I was reminded of the story of the late Lord Hewart who said of the late Lord Birkenhead, when in his prime, that he was always most interested to hear Lord Birkenhead open a new case so as to discover which of two entirely fresh minds grasped the main facts first.

I think that my hon. Friend has overlooked a very important legal consequence of the actual Amendment which he moved. I think that it is generally agreed that it is an advantage to make provision, as this Lords Amendment makes provision, for the Commission in certain circumstances to dispose of their property by making it over to companies and then selling the shares of the companies rather than selling them as transport units.

That is the main provision of Section 1 of the Lords Amendment. The words which are proposed by this Amendment which we are now discussing to be left out are the words which, by reference to subsection (3), define the principles on which the Commission should act in deciding whether to apply the company structure. Therefore, it seems to me that the real point for the House to decide in discussing and deciding on this Amendment is whether or not these particular principles should be observed by the Commission in deciding whether it is expedient or not to operate through the company structure.

Let us look at these principles in subsection (3)—and at all of them and not only part of them, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The first point is the provision that the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing opportunities for people to enter or re-enter the industry despite the fact that they may be able to operate only on a small scale. This is the point about the small unit which we discussed at some length on the previous Amendment, when I pointed out that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government, which, I know, hon. Members opposite do not share, that the transport industry will be more efficient in this country if, broadly speaking, it is carried on by small undertakings. It is argued by hon. Members opposite that the whole history of the industry is that it aggregates into large units.

I cannot help remembering some of the excellent arguments made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in earlier debates, in favour of nationalisation and against private enterprise on the grounds that private enterprise always tended to monopoly, and as monopoly is a bad thing so is private enterprise a bad thing. If he is right that competitive private enterprise in industry tends to monopoly and tends to large units, is it not extraordinary that in the case of transport before nationalisation the vast majority of the lorries engaged in transport were operated in small units? Is not that clear proof that there are, in fact, special considerations affecting the transport industry which lead to a situation in transport which is not repeated in other private enterprise industries?

Mr. James Harrison (Nottingham, East)

Will the Minister take into consideration in that particular argument the fact that the war was on and zoning was operating all over the shires? Small units were being collected into large units.

Mr. Maudling

The transport industry was inherently an industry of small units. We would say that flexibility of service to the individual customer is what is needed in transport, and this is provided by the small unit. We believe that the experience of the Road Haulage Executive shows that this cannot be provided so well by the large unit. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to accept that argument, because that is the fundamental argument between us. Therefore, I can see that hon. Members opposite would want to leave out of the Lords Amendment this provision in Clause 3 (3) with reference to the small unit, which is the argument we had on the previous Amendment. I do not think the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment noticed that there are two paragraphs to subsection (3) and the second paragraph says Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price. Therefore, if this Amendment is carried, and if the words are deleted, although I am sure it was not the intention of the mover, there is no reference left in the Lords Amendment to the question of the best possible price, a point to which hon. Members opposite very rightly attach considerable importance.

Mr. Proctor

Does the hon. Gentleman put forward the extraordinary contention that the Transport Commission cannot sell anything at the best possible price unless a statutory direction to do so is in the Bill? Surely they would follow the usual commercial practice of getting the best possible price.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) so argued on the previous Amendment and said that it was most essential to see that the Commission should get the best possible price. I agree with the hon. Member that the Commission would undoubtedly try to get the highest price, but his argument is quite inconsistent with the argument put forward on the previous Amendment on the importance of putting in that reference when this Amendment deletes the only reference to the best possible price.

Mr. Proctor

On the last Amendment, the hon. Gentleman resisted the argument of my hon. Friend and would not put in the statutory direction.

Mr. Maudling

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Lords Amendment as it stands provides that the Commission shall have regard both to the question of small units and the best possible price. On the previous occasion hon. Members opposite were trying to insert a reference to the best possible price, which would be redundant, and now they are seeking to delete the only remaining reference to it. That would be the effect of this Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I draw attention to subsection (5) of the new Clause which refers to the price and provides the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one and so on. So there is a reference to the price.

Mr. Maudling

That would be an argument against the previous Amendment, but that only places the obligation on the Board, not on the Commission. However, it is not on those grounds that I ask the House to reject the Amendment; this is only a technical ground. The real ground is that discussed on the previous Amendment, that we believe very strongly that it is in the interests of the transport industry that it should be organised in small units, and hon. Members opposite take a contrary view. I cannot see how we can reach agreement on this Amendment any more than we could on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan

In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman envisage that a company will be formed as such?

Mr. Maudling

I do not know whether the hon. Member was here when we discussed the previous Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan

I was not.

Mr. Maudling

I quite understand. I explained that the Commission are given the initiative, subject to the approval of the Board, to adopt the company structure if that can be done consistently with the two principles of the small unit and the best possible price, which to some extent conflict. But the Commission and the Disposal Board between them will decide how those principles should be applied in practice to the disposal as a transport unit and the company structure.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Poole

I have always been somewhat allergic to economists I am more allergic now, having heard the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We are now suffering from the disabilities of having a Government introduce a Bill without knowing what they wanted to do in the Bill when they started. Since then they have been altering the Bill at every stage and in every place and in every conceivable Clause. The resultant Act of Parliament will be a completely unworkable Measure. I cannot see how the Economic Secretary to the Treasury can have this new Clause on the company structure without accepting our Amendment.

As I understand the company structure, the Lords Amendment provides for the establishment of holding companies to which would be transferred blocks of assets and blocks of vehicles in order that they might function as fairly large units. The small individual concern of one or two vehicles would be sold off to the small man. But what the Government are trying to do is to ride two horses at the same time. They want to appease the Road Haulage Association and provide a large unit under the company structure, yet they want to make it appear to the small man that at the same time they are protecting him. Of course it cannot be done. One cannot create the small man in whom the Economic Secretary to the Treasury seems so interested. Is he the man who is going into the market to buy up shares in a company constituted under the company structure of the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Maudling

The small man we envisage would acquire vehicles through the system of transport units, and the larger operation would be through the company structure.

Mr. Poole

If the larger unit is to be constituted through the medium of the company structure, how is it proposed to resist the Opposition Amendment? The Amendment seeks to delete subsection (3), the main provision of which is that a man would be prevented from taking part in this operation because his resources were such that he could operate only on a small scale. The Economic Secretary should not have reproached my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for not having read the Clause. I am sure the Economic Secretary has not read it or, if he has, he has done so with a lack of understanding. He is now making confusion more confounded by telling us that the provisions of this Clause are for the larger unit and he is leaving in the Bill provisions that there shall be included facilities for the man who has not got the resources to buy up the larger unit.

If the Government really want a workable company structure, they ought to accept the Amendment to delete Clause 3 (3). Without that Amendment I do not see how they can get a company structure. Subsection (3) says that a man whose resources are so small shall not be excluded from taking part, but the purpose of the company structure is to build up a large unit. The small man whose resources are small has to buy the transport unit, according to the Economic Secretary.

Mr. Maudling

The point is that the criterion and aim of giving admission to small people to the industry does not affect the company structure. It affects the Commission in deciding whether or not to adopt the company structure in any particular instance.

Mr. Poole

That may be so, but what the Minister is saying is that I am at perfect liberty to swim the Channel tonight. He knows it is a physical impossibility for me to do so—I might float across, but I could not swim across. He is giving the right to the small man, through the company structure, to tender for shares which he knows the small man cannot buy. I do not understand this affection for the small man. I am astonished that an Economic Secretary should tie himself to this conception of the small unit in transport.

I do not want to argue the case, which has been argued before and which I have argued many times, that transport is not a field in which small units can be effective. Where is the small unit which can provide trunk road services from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow and to the North of England with terminal facilities and intermediate trans-shipment points? There are already plenty of small men in the industry, as I said yesterday. There are 425,000 operators operating something less than one million vehicles. That is far too many small people, having regard to the economic position of the nation. Whilst we are trying to do all this, the Minister is allowing a large number of C licence vehicles—and I am not going to stray from the Amendment—to run about willy-nilly, most of them being without loads on their return journeys.

Viscount Hinctaingbrooke

That is repetition.

Mr. Poole

The noble Lord has just walked into the Chamber and has no right to say that I am being repetitive. I have been in the Chamber and he has not been here to know whether I have been repeating myself or not. I suggest that either he stays in the Chamber and makes his contribution to the debate by getting up on his legs and addressing you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, under the correct Parliamentary procedure, or that he return whence he came and leave us to get on with the business of the House.

I ask the Government very seriously to give further consideration to this Amendment which we have moved. I think that they may be unwittingly falling into great difficulties themselves. I do not like this Bill and I do not like the company structure in it; but I believe that if we are to make this Bill work we cannot do so while we leave Clause 3 (3) operating with the new Lords Amendment. I ask the Economic Secretary to look at this matter again, because I cannot see how in the company structure, as set out in the present Lords Amendment, there is any place at all for the small man.

Mr. Frank McLeavy (Bradford, East)

I want to support the Amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). I cannot understand the attitude of the Economic Secretary and of the Government in respect of large companies in transport. One would imagine from the speeches made from the Government Front Bench that the proper provision for our industrial system was a large number of small, individual operators. It is no good the Economic Secretary saying that the Government believe that the small units run by the small men will give a more efficient service to trade and industry than is provided by the large companies or the Transport Commission. The facts are against such an argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) referred to the trunk services. No one, not even the Minister, really believes that the trunk services throughout the country, which are being run today by the Transport Commission, can be run by small individual owners working in competition one against the other. There are many factors in the transport industry which make it essential that the large company structure should be applied if any alteration is being made at all, rather than place the emphasis upon the small family holding.

Anyone who has had experience in the transport industry knows that the demands of the Road Traffic Act require that the condition of the vehicle shall be of a very high standard. It requires a big measure of maintenance, and it is not possible for the small individual owner to maintain a fleet of vehicles conditioned and serviced in the way that we are entitled to expect from an efficient service and from the point of view of public safety on the road.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

All repetition.

Mr. McLeavy

Quite frankly, all experience shows that that is impossible. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deliver my speech. If he wants to speak, he can get on his feet afterwards.

After the First World War men returning from the Forces bought vehicles and tried to earn a living in road transport in competition with other people. There was cut-throat competition and many of them went to the wall. The position is that if we are not able to maintain a standard of vehicles and a service in a way that was necessary under the Road Traffic Act, then we are going to damage the transport system of the country. If we are going to maintain efficient transport services for industry, it must inevitably be on a fairly large scale where the garages, the repair shops, cleaners and the like can be available to attend to the requirements of these vehicles. Tribute to the Transport Commission has been made by industry itself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the hon. Member is far from the Amendment at the moment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Hear, hear.

Mr. McLeavy

While the noble Lord may say "Hear, hear," with every respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are dealing now with the advantage of the small unit as against the large company structure. I am trying to develop an argument on the lines that the company structure is far more preferable, from the point of view of service to industry and safety on the roads, than the small unit owned by an individual.

I was saying that the position is perfectly clear, that where there is a large fleet of vehicles there is a system of garaging, servicing and spare drivers which cannot be provided by the small man. A very important factor in this business is where illness prevents a driver taking his vehicle out. In a large unit a reserve driver can immediately be put on to drive the vehicle and so avoid disappointment to industry.

8.30 p.m.

I believe the company structure to be an essential factor in the development of our transport industry. Without it we shall be unable to provide that service which the community is entitled to receive. A tribute has been paid to that service by industry and to the well-conditioned fleet of the British Transport Commission. In spite of the suggestions to the contrary, the service given by British transport—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendment we are discussing deals with the method of disposal of vehicles and not with the general service.

Mr. McLeavy

It refers to the manner of disposal, whether it should be by company structure or on the basis of the small unit. I am endeavouring to argue that the Government should accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend because industry demands the efficient service which can be given only by large company holdings.

One of the astonishing things about the attitude of the Government is that, in the face of the obvious facts of the situation, they are allowing themselves to be led by the Road Haulage Association. No one knows better than the Economic Secretary that we cannot afford wasteful competition and extravagant transport costs. If we are to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has urged industry to do, increase production and reduce costs so that we can compete in foreign markets, we must have an efficient transport system comprising large companies. A policy of small holdings will not solve the economic problems of this nation. Economic development will be retarded and industry will find it more difficult to fulfil its obligations.

Mr. Callaghan

The Economic Secretary is so amiable that it is difficult to be rough with him. His acute mind, which we have so often admired, must have caused him to realise that he is in great difficulty in trying to refute our Amendment. He saw clearly what was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that he was in an intellectual difficulty. Despite the strictures of the Economic Secretary, I thought that my hon. Friend displayed a grasp of this matter which he obtained very quickly and which filled me with admiration.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member for Oldham, West certainly displayed a grasp, but I am not sure whether it related to this Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan

I thought he understood the Clause extremely well. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) seized on the very point which is causing discomfiture to the Economic Secretary and which is responsible for his amiability—because if the hon. Gentleman cannot disarm us by argument, he will try to do so by amiability. But we are not to be taken in by either method of persuasion. The truth, as the Economic Secretary knows, is that the Government are asking for two quite contradictory things to be done. The reason they have become contradictory is that the Government initially wished to place all the emphasis on the small road haulier. Only later did they desire to create some form of company structure.

I point out to the Economic Secretary that the first line of this new Clause—I am paraphrasing—says that where it appears expedient to the Commission to form companies they shall be permitted to do so. When will it be expedient to the Commission, looking at the subject de novo, to form companies? I would venture to give an answer straight away, without having consulted the Commission. They would think it expedient to form companies at almost all their major depots.

Over the last three or four years they have built up an organisation—we have been over this at great length—capable of functioning as a self-contained unit with great powers of self-direction and self-determination. There is so much local control within these units that if the question of expediency means what would be convenient and what would fetch the best price for the Commission, I would warrant that in the terms of the Clause as it stands the Commission would favour the creation of a very large number of companies indeed for sale as such and only a very small number of individual transport units to be sold in terms of one, two, three or more lorries.

I do not say that there would not be cases where they would sell transport units of four, five, or six lorries. I imagine that they would do that in some of the small Welsh towns like Welshpool where I visited a unit of five or six lorries. If it were wished to form that unit into a company, it might be much too top-heavy a structure.

I claim—and I think that common sense and history will be on my side— that generally speaking, if this Clause is to be read by the Commission without regard to anything else in the Bill, they will say, "This is what we favour. We wish to create a large number of companies. In this way we shall preserve the unit of organisation and we shall be able to market this organisation in a proper and sensible way so as to maintain services." So far so good. The Economic Secretary and I are in agreement up to this moment. I base this on our joint interpretation of the Clause so far.

But here is the nigger in the woodpile. At this moment the Government draftsmen, having written this in response to all the agitation that has been going on, say, "My word; we have to be careful here, Minister, because in fact under the earlier part of this Bill, in Clause 3, we have said that the Commission must have regard to two factors in disposing of these units." They must have regard to the desirability of letting the little men come back into the industry and to the fact that, in order to ensure that it is a little industry, no transport unit shall include more than 50 motor vehicles without the approval of the Minister.

The draftsmen say, "Well, Minister, we think we must put a saving in here," and as a result we get a completely contradictory Clause which, as drafted, says that where the Commission think that it would best serve their interests and those of the public to form a company they shall do so, provided that they shall not form companies in such circumstances that small men will not have a chance to re-enter the industry and, in any case, the unit shall not have more than 50 vehicles in it.

Mr. Maudling

I want to make this clear. That is not the effect of the Lords Amendment. The effect is not to apply the limit of 50 vehicles and 200 tons to the company. The words which the Opposition seek to delete refer to the purposes. The companies have not been limited.

Mr. Callaghan

That is a valuable addition, and I am very glad to have it from the Economic Secretary, because I am certain that his interpretation is right, or he would not have given it to us. It is a great advance to know that, in forming a company, the Commission are not to be limited to 50 vehicles or 200 tons unladen weight without getting the assent of the Minister to go higher. I take it that that is a statement of Government policy, on which we can rely, and that, in fact, the Commission will be able to form companies with more than 50 vehicles in number and with more than an aggregate weight of 200 tons unladen without the consent of the Minister. It is very important, and I take it that there is no dissent from that, and that it is the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] Well, at the moment, I am not getting much response, but it is important that we should be completely clear about this.

Mr. Maudling

I have just refreshed my memory, and higher authority confirms it.

Mr. Callaghan

I am very much obliged, and we can leave that point straight away on the understanding that a company formed by the Commission may have more than 50 vehicles and more than 200 tons unladen weight without the consent of the Minister.

But how on earth are they to stick to the second condition in subsection (3) if they must have regard to the fact that transport units shall not exceed 50 motor vehicles when they are making up their minds whether or not to form a company? It is really incomprehensible. I do try to understand what the Minister is saying, but I am bound to say that in this particular matter I am not clear how the Commission are supposed to reconcile what in my view is the completely contradictory advice and instructions given to them—first, that they should be able to form a company where they think it is expedient, and that, in forming that company, they may have regard to the reentry of small men into the business and secondly, that such transport units when taken over shall not exceed 50 vehicles.

This is where the Government are not speaking with one voice, because in the House of Lords Viscount Swinton certainly said that the formation of a company would be an exceptional case. On the other hand, the Earl of Selkirk, speaking four or five columns later in the OFFICIAL REPORT, when challenged on this point, and when asked what exceptional circumstances would arise, said: The circumstances are these. People will want to buy"— Here he was interrupted by another noble Lord, who said: "Exceptional circumstances." The Earl of Selkirk went on to say: We think the circumstances will depend on the opinion which the Board form as to the way in which a particular formation can usefully be sold. That is all in the Bill, and I cannot add to it. I do not think the noble Lord was right about the Board; I think it is the Commission, subject to the Board certainly The noble Lord went on: When we have passed this Bill, substantial power will pass to the Disposal Board and to the Commission to conduct their affairs as the Bill directs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1199–1200.] I feel sorry for him. Here is the point. As the Earl of Selkirk said, there is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances. I do not know what that was intended to convey, but the noble Lord was challenged on the subject and said that exceptional circumstances meant the provision for the formation of a company. One possible interpretation of the last sentence of the Earl of Selkirk's statement that there is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances is that he was attempting to reassure the noble Lord who was challenging him by assuring him that the circumstances would not necessarily be exceptional.

It is a great disappointment to us to know that the Government are still

adhering to the conception that the formation of a company shall go forward only in exceptional circumstances. It seems to us very desirable that the Commission should be completely free to form these companies where they think the public interest will be best served, and in the public interest I include the price they will get for a unit.

I have little doubt that a better price will be got by the sale of the shares of the company than will be got by the sale of a transport unit, and if the Minister insists, as apparently the Government are insisting, that the formation of companies will be only exceptional and that the sale of transport units will be the normal method of disposing of vehicles, then I say to the Minister that, by that decision, he is automatically increasing the loss that the Commission are to suffer in the sale of these vehicles, that he is automatically increasing the amount of the levy that will have to be paid by private traders in order to recoup the Commission for that loss and that he will therefore automatically be extending the period of the levy.

8.45 p.m.

All of this was objectionable to his supporters, and it was in response to their objections that the Minister originally introduced this particular Lords Amendment, the whole of which we are now discussing. For those reasons, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to be content with the explanations that we have heard, and I trust that they will divide the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 273.

Division No. 143.]	AYES	[8.45 p.m
Aitken, W. T.	Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Bullard, D. G.
Alport, C. J. M.	Bennett, William (Woodside)	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Burden, F. F. A.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Birch, Nigel	Butcher, Sir Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J	Bishop, F. P.	Campbell, Sir David
Arbuthnot, John	Black, C. W.	Carr, Robert
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Boothby, R. J. G.	Cary, Sir Robert
Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W)	Bowen, E. R.	Channon, H.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Boyle, Sir Edward	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Braine, B. R.	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Banks, Col. C.	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Cole, Norman
Barber, Anthony	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Colegate, W. A.
Barlow, Sir John	Bromley-Davenport, Ll.-Col. W. H.	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Brooman-White, R. C.	Cooper-Key, E. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Pitman, I. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyra, Col. O. E.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Powell, J. Enoch
Crouch, R. F.	Jennings, R.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Profumo, J. D.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Raikes, Sir Victor
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Davidson, Viscountess	Kaberry, D.	Redmayne, H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Keeling, Sir Edward	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Deedes, W. F.	Kerr, H. W.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Lambert, Hon. G.	Renton, D. L. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lambton, Viscount	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Donner, P. W.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Robson-Brown, W.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Drayson, G. B.	Leather, E. H. C.	Roper, Sir Harold
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Russell, R. S.
Duthie, W. S.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Lindsay, Martin	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Linstead, H. N.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Erroll, F. J.	Llewellyn, D. T.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Fell, A.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Scott, R. Donald
Finlay, Graeme	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Fisher, Nigel	Longden, Gilbert	Shepherd, William
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Low, A. R. W.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Fort, R.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Foster, John	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Snadden, W. McN.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	McCallum, Major D.	Soames, Capt. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Speir, R. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	McKibbin, A. J.	Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Gammans, L. D.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Stevens, G. P.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Maclean, Fitzroy	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Godber, J. B.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Storey, S.
Gough, C. F. H.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Gower, H. R.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Summers, G. S.
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Grimond, J.	Markham, Major S. F.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Marples, A. E.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Harden, J. R. E.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Maude, Angus	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maudling, R.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Tilney, John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Mellor, Sir John	Touche, Sir Gordon
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Molson, A. H. E.	Turner, H. F. L.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Turton, R. H.
Hay, John	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Vane, W. M. F.
Heald, Sir Lionel	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Heath, Edward	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Vosper, D. F.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Nicholls, Harmar	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nugent, G. R. H.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nutting, Anthony	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Holland-Martin, C. J	Oakshott, H. D.	Watkinson, H. A.
Hollis, M. C.	Odey, G. W.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Holt, A. F.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Wellwood, W.
Hope, Lord John	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Horobin, I. M.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon. E.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)	Williams. R Dudley (Exeter)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Osborne, C.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Partridge, E.	Wood, Hon. R
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	York, C.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Hurd, A. R.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.

NOES
Adams, Richard	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Nally, W.
Albu, A. H.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hale, Leslie	O'Brien, T.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Oldfield, W. H
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Hamilton, W. W.	Oliver, G. H
Awbery, S. S.	Hannan, W.	Orbach, M.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hargreaves, A.	Oswald, T.
Baird, J.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Padley, W. E.
Balfour, A.	Hastings, S.	Paget, R. T.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J	Hayman, F. H.	Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Bartley, P.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bence, C. R.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Palmer, A. M. F.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Herbison, Miss M.	Pannell, Charles
Benson, G.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Pargiter, G. A.
Beswick, F.	Hobson, C. R.	Parker, J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Holman, P.	Paton, J.
Blackburn, F.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Pearson, A.
Blenkinsop, A.	Houghton, Douglas	Peart, T. F.
Blyton, W. R.	Hoy, J. H.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Boardman, H.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Poole, C. C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Popplewell, E.
Bowles, F. G.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Porter, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Brockway, A. F.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Proctor, W. T.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Pryde, D. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Pursey, Cmdr. H
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Rankin, John
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Reeves, J.
Burke, W. A.	Janner, B.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jeger, George (Goole)	Rhodes, H.
Callaghan, L. J.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Richards, R.
Carmichael, J.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Champion, A. J.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Clunie, J.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Coldrick, W.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Ross, William
Collick, P. H.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Royle, C.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Keenan, W.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cove, W. G.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Kinley, J.	Short, E. W.
Crossman, R. H. S	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Lewis, Arthur	Skeffington, A. M.
Davits, Harold (Leek)	Lindgren, G. S.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Logan, D. G.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Deer, G.	MacColl, J. E.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Delargy, H. J.	McGhee, H. G.	Snow, J. W.
Dodds, N. N.	McGovern, J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Donnelly, D. L.	McInnes, J.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Driberg, T. E. N	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Sparks, J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	McLeavy, F.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.
Edelman, M.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Stress, Dr. Barnett
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)	Swingler, S. T.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Sylvester, G. O.
Fernyhough, E.	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fienburgh, W.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Finch, H. J.	Mason, Roy	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mayhew, C. P.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Follick, M.	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Foot, M. M.	Messer, F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Forman, J. C.	Mikardo, Ian	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mitchison, G. R	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Freeman, John (Watford)	Monslow, W.	Thornton, E.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Moody, A. S.	Thurtle, Ernest
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Timmons, J.
Gibson, C. W.	Morley, R.	Tomney, F.
Glanville, James	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Turner-Samuels, M.
Gooch, E. G.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lyne
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Mort, D. L.	Usborne, H. C.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Moyle, A.	Viant, S. P.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Mulley, F. W	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Grey, C. F.	Murray, J. D	Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Wells, William (Walsall)	Wilkins, W. A.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C)
West, D. G.	Willey, F. T.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Wheatlay, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, David (Neath)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheelden, W. E.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)	Wyatt, W. L.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)	Yates, V. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Wigg, George	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S).	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)	Mr. Bowden and Mr. J. Taylor.

Mr. Speaker

The next Amendment that has been selected is in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso. The House will be aware that that is the proviso in the proposed new Clause, and it occurred to me that as this raises the powers, functions and constitution of the Board, it might be convenient to the House if, on this Amendment, a general discussion took place upon the new board, embodying some of the later Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with the details of these functions. I think the House might find itself less trammelled in the discussion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, might I ask you a question or two about that? There is no new board in the proposed company structure. There is in this Clause a new company structure, but the board which will have authority over companies, just as it already has in the Bill as drawn over transport units, is the same Disposal Board in both cases. The composition, powers and everything to do with the board have been, I readily agree, exhaustively examined already for many days in both Houses.

Mr. D. Jones

Mr. Speaker, before you give us the advantage of your view upon that point, may I make this observation to you? The proposed new Clause, covering four pages, extends the powers of the Board substantially to do a large number of things which were not even mentioned in the Bill when it left this House. Therefore, I submit to you that the powers now proposed to be given to the Board are substantially greater than they were when the Bill left this House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that only in one particular have the powers of the Board been extended in this field of company structure further than in the field of transport units. That one extension is important, I agree. It deals with whether there should or should not be the company structure in particular cases.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you could indicate which Amendments you were proposing to call in connection with the Board. If you did so it might help us to decide how far the discussion should go.

Mr. Speaker

What I had in mind were the functions of the Board in relation to companies. It seems to me that the Amendment in subsection (3), to leave out "with the approval of the Board," is relevant. The Amendment in subsection (5), to leave out "or refused'": the Amendment to subsection (5), to leave out from "accepted," to "unless"; and the Amendment to subsection (5), to leave out "they," and insert "the Commission," all seem to cover the same ground. The Amendment to subsection (11), to leave out "with the approval of the Board," also seems to come into the same category.

I am in the hands of the House in this matter. I am merely making this suggestion for the convenience of the House. If the discussion on the first Amendment which I am about to call will cover these other Amendments it might facilitate the debate to include them.

Mr. Davies

That is quite agreeable to us, Sir. In effect, it means that the powers of the Board to permit the Commission to take certain actions will be the subject for discussion.

Mr. Speaker

The subject will be the powers of the Board in so far as they are affected by these Amendments.

Mr. Mellish

Are all these Amendments to be taken and voted on separately?

Mr. Speaker

That is not necessary. One discussion would cover the lot.

Mr. Callaghan

I suggest that we should see how the discussion goes. It is clear that there are many different points in relation to which the Board will have power of one sort or another. At the end of the debate it might be felt that we should test the feeling of the House on the disposal of the shares, whereas we might not want to do so in regard to other matters.

Mr. Speaker

That may be so, but we should not repeat the discussion. We should have a general discussion.

Mr. D. Jones

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out: Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid. The effect of this Amendment will be to delete the proviso which has been inserted as a second paragraph to subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause. That new Clause seeks to establish a company structure and it is rather interesting to notice what power is given to the Commission. The Clause says: If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section.… In the first place, the Clause lays down specific directions and instructions as to the manner in which the Commission shall proceed; what safeguards they shall insert; what examinations they shall undertake and, having made all those inquiries and investigations and having fully satisfied thomselves that it is expedient that they should proceed to dispose of the shares in these company undertakings which they are to establish, the way would then be open for them to proceed with the task of establishing the companies and dealing with the shares of those companies.

For some reason which is not yet clear to me—nor do I think it is clear to a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends or to a large section of the business community—there is a proviso: Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient … Why should it be necessary for a body like the British Transport Commission first of all to have to undertake all the safeguards laid down in the Clause and then, having satisfied themselves that the conditions are satisfactory and reasonable, to submit the matter to the Board? The Board have to consider whether it is expedient or otherwise. They have to discover that it is expedient and—the last sentence of this proviso is interesting— will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid. Why this great concern about the Road Haulage Disposal Board I am not quite sure. It is not without interest, in view of the tremendous powers which the Board are given in this Clause, and it is not unreasonable to examine who is to comprise this Board.

The chairman and deputy chairman are to be chosen by the Minister and they have to possess no qualifications whatsoever, apparently, except that they have to satisfy the Minister. Of the remaining members of the Board, one member shall be appointed from among persons nominated by the Commission; one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade and industry as the Minister thinks fit; one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences as the Minister thinks fit; and one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding C licences as the Minister thinks fit. The only qualifications which the remaining four members of the Board are to have, excepting that they need the approval of the Minister of Transport, are these: one has to be a member of the Commission, one has to be representative of trade and industry, one has to be representative of people holding A or B licences and one has to be representative of people holding C licences.

I submit that this is not the kind of Board which ought to be charged with the responsibility of snooping on the British Transport Commission to satisfy itself that they are behaving and acting in the public interest. I submit that the Commission, tried as they have been, experienced as they are, would be much more likely to have regard to the public well being than is a Board of this kind, most of the members holding vested interests in the undertaking which they are going to examine. Let us see precisely what is likely to happen. "Modern Transport" for 17th April had this to say: Road Haulage Association member of Disposal Board. Nominations to be submitted to the Minister. Two of the four national vice-chairmen"—

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

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member, in dealing with this Amendment, to traverse matters which are entirely covered by Clause 2, and which are in no way involved either in the new Clause under consideration or in the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As I understand the argument, it is that this proviso should be omitted because the Board, constituted as the hon. Member says it is, is not a fit body to supervise the Commission.

Mr. Powell

Further to that, is it in order to go in detail into the question of the composition of the Board?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

To go in detail into the composition of the Board would not be in order, but to make the point that the Board is not a suitable body to supervise the Commission is, I think, in order.

Mr. Jones

I am endeavouring to prove that by the very nature of its composition, and because of the people who are to comprise this Board, having regard to the public interest in this matter, the Board are not a fit and proper body to which the Transport Commission must submit their proposals after they themselves have examined them in the light of the public interest. I submit that the Board are not competent to do this because they have a vested interest in this particular business before they undertake the task

Already, before the Bill becomes law, the Road Haulage Association, who seem to have made a very great number of comments about this Bill since the White Paper was issued a long time ago, are busy, and I submit that the facts contained in this document completely rule out the fitness of a board comprised of these people to make this examination. Two of the four national vice-chairmen of the Road Haulage Association have been nominated by the Association for the hauliers' seat on the Disposal Board; not to sit in the public interest, but in the hauliers' seat; thus telling us in advance that the interest to which they will have regard will be the hauliers' interest, and even if it conflicts with the public interest and the consumers' interest I presume that they will still have the hauliers' interest in mind. All members of the Board. says this paragraph, are to be appointed by the Minister. All the four appointments to be made by the chairman and deputy-chairman have been decided upon. One member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences as the Minister thinks fit, according to the Transport Bill Thus, while the Minister is not bound to appoint any person nominated by the Road Haulage Association, there is every reason to expect that he will do so. Is this another case of prior consultation? I wonder.

Mr. Ross

Lorries for the lads.

Mr. Jones

It will only remain to choose between Mr. Farmer and Mr. Barry, two vice-chairmen of this Association.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. It seems to me that the hon. Member is now going in detail into the constitution of the Board. If he is arguing that the Board generally is so constituted it should not be placed in a supervisory position in relation to the Commission, that is in order, but to argue in detail the composition of the Board is not.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Jones

I am seeking to prove that by the very nature of the qualifications that they must have they are not competent to do this job.

In Clause 2, which deals with the setting up of the Disposal Board, there is provision in subsection (8) for the steps that are to be taken should the Board arrive at a deadlock when making their decision. When the Transport Commission start to create this company structure, they will submit the matter to the Disposal Board, but having regard to the composition of the Board there may be disagreement between the members. In view of the importance of this company structure to the road haulage industry, to the people concerned and to the House, it is vital to examine precisely what happens in the event of a disagreement between the members of the Board.

If there be a disagreement somebody has to resolve it, because, as I understand the new Clause, there is no appeal by the Commission against a decision of the Disposal Board if it declines to approve of a proposal made by the Commission. On the other hand, according to Clause 2, if there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Board on any question—which, I presume, includes the question of the company structure— and the chairman, or, in the absence of the chairman, the deputy-chairman, considers that the matter is of sufficient importance to require to be referred to the Minister, he may refer the matter to the Minister, and where the matter is so referred to the Minister the Minister may, if he thinks fit, give directions to the Board as to the course to be followed, and the Board shall comply with any such directions. I submit that if the procedure outlined in this new Clause is followed, there has only to be disagreement amongst the members of the Disposal Board and the right hon. Gentleman, who holds the political appointment, will again be called upon to exercise those economic functions about which he talked in the early hours of this morning, which apparently a Tory Minister is so capable of discharging. In my judgment, that is another example of a political decision being made over a matter which is purely economic.

One begins to wonder why, running through this Bill, including this new Clause, the Bill is given such an honoured place in the disposal of these very valuable road haulage assets. I think it is because, as the Minister of Transport has indicated, as has his Parliamentary Secretary in recent days, he has no faith in the Transport Commission. When the party opposite was in Opposition we used to hear a lot of talk about snoopers, but I know of no other legislation passed since I have been a Member which has officially recognised snoopers on behalf of the Minister.

I am sorry that the Minister of Works has left the Chamber, because in indicating the views of some Members of Her Majesty's Government about the Transport Commission, he thought out loud at Middlesbrough on 17th May of last year. He was good enough to tell us in a speech in the Town Hall, Middlesbrough, that he strongly criticised the suggestion that the Government should consult the Transport Commission before denationalising road haulage. He said: We are not likely to get any good advice from them, because they were appointed by our enemies. It rather looked as though the Minister of Works was echoing aloud what a number of other Ministers of the Crown are thinking.

Let me turn now to the Parliamentary Secretary, who was good enough to give the Traders' Road Transport Association of the East Midland Division, at Nottingham, I believe, a week or 10 days ago, the benefit of his views about some of the bodies he is not taking part in trying to break up. He said, first of all, that nationalisation would never work because no one had reached the standard of perfection where he spent other people's money more carefully than his own. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is now dealing with the general issue of nationalisation, and not with the relationship of the Commission and the Board.

Mr. Jones

I am trying to prove by quoting words of Her Majesty's Ministers in speeches in the country that they have, from time to time, indicated in public utterances their complete disregard and suspicion for the bodies which they are now seeking to break up.

The Bill places the final responsibility upon the Minister of Transport. It is not without interest to know what his views are about the Transport Commission. We know what his views are going to be about the Disposal Board because he has taken jolly good care that he is going to be responsible for appointing all the members.

The Parliamentary Secretary had something to say about the Road Haulage Executive, the body which this Bill seeks to break up and do away with. He criticised the Road Haulage Executive and said that they were dissipating the goodwill built up by private enterprise. He said that there was a monopoly of 41,000 vehicles with 12,000 officials to control them and empty running to the tune of something like 40 per cent. He is either a knave or a fool, because he had only to consult the Transport Commission's Report for 1951 and the facts would be quite clear to him.

He might have thought that he could get away with the charge which the Prime Minister made, but every technical journal published in this country has given the answer to the 12,000 and the greater costs of operation. Therefore, I am suggesting that it is not by accident that the Disposal Board is set up in the way that it is, that it comprises representatives of the interests which it does, that it is to be finally appointed by the Minister, that it has only to fall out among itself and the Minister can step in and make decisions for it.

It is for all these reasons, I think, that the Commission, after they have taken all the steps laid down to satisfy themselves that the establishment of this company structure is in accordance with the public interest, they have to submit their work to the Disposal Board in order that they may decide whether or not the proposal is expedient. The Minister is making a political decision on a matter which is purely economic.

Mr. Hargreaves

The purpose of the Amendment is to remove from the proposed new Clause relating to the transfer of property to companies with a view to selling shares, that authority which sets the Disposal Board over the Commission and to give that authority to the Transport Commission rather than to the Board. I was interested in the discussion on an earlier Amendment to this new Clause when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that the initiative in these matters rested with the Commission. I have followed carefully speeches of my hon. Friends and examined the Clause and the Bill very carefully and I think that the use of the word "initiative" in respect of these matters is rather straining its meaning.

I believe that the imposition of the Board takes away all possibility of initiative in connection with the setting up of companies by the Transport Commission. Anyone who examines the new Clause will recognise that the Commission have little power in connection with the initiation of the proposed companies. The Board referred to in the subsection we seek to remove authorise the creation of the company. They control the sale of shares by tender or agreement, they control the price, they determine the purposes the operation of rights and privileges. That is done by the Board and not by the Commission, yet the Economic Secretary referred earlier to the initiative of the Commission in connection with this Clause. The Board decide in the first place whether the setting up of such companies is expedient and also whether or not it will prejudice the purposes to which the Commission must have regard.

My complaint in connection with the subsection which the Amendment seeks to remove is that it places the whole of the responsibility in connection with this Clause upon a Board which is to be appointed by the Minister. It is not unimportant that the arrangements entered into with a finance house in connection with the disposal of these matters of which complaint was made earlier were entered into, according to the spokesman of the Government in another place, not between that first company and the hauliers, but between that first company and the Road Haulage Association. Viscount Swinton was responsible for that in the Lords.

The Minister, when making what I might call his haulage representative appointments, ought to take the opportunity in my view to see that people, who are not already committed in the way that is suggested in the statement made by Lord Swinton in another place are appointed. They should not be appointed to this Board without careful consideration.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is now entering into a discussion on the composition of the Board.

Mr. Hargreaves

With very great respect, I am suggesting that if one is entering into the duties of the Board which are laid down in the Lords Amendment, one must also have regard to the duties and fitness of the Commission.

I should like to deal with the duties and the fitness of the Board set up under the Lords Amendment. I do not think that my reference to the membership of the Board and the appointments by the Minister conflicts with the arguments I have attempted to put before the House. I suggest that the point to which I called the attention of the House is not unimportant in the Minister's assessments of the duties on both sides. We must recognise that the House has come to a certain political decision which is now embodied in the Bill. The decision is that the road haulage undertakings shall be disposed of, and the Bill sets out the methods whereby that shall be done. Those purposes are binding upon the Commission, and it seems to me that, the central political decision having passed through Parliament, the work must be carried out in the ways laid down in the Bill. We must recognise that the Commission will carry out the major effect of this Measure in the way embodied in the Lords Amendment and by the Board which we are referring to in this Amendment. While accepting that the Board may have functions to perform in connection with other aspects of the Bill, I believe that in the setting up of the company structure under this Lords Amendment, there is room for recognising that the Commission itself must have the best knowledge as to whether the company structure is the most effective way to carry out the purpose of the Bill.

Recognising the central purpose and effect of the Bill, it would follow that the Commission is the best means by which the company structure can be used, for we must have regard to the work upon which the Commission is engaged at present and which will continue during the period of sale. We must recognise that there are physical parts of the undertaking which will be taken from the Commission during the sale, and it would seem logical that people in control of the undertaking at that time are in the best position to determine the best way to perform those functions.

Supervision by the Disposal Board at every stage will tend to hamper the work of the Commission. The two bodies would appear to be at enmity with each other. The function of the Board is to dispose of the assets by one means or another. It is the responsibility of the Commission to carry out the purpose of the Bill and. at the same time, perform its function of meeting the transport needs of industry.

Having laid down the work of the Commission in the Bill, and provided a system of safeguards, I believe that we may leave it to carry out that work.

Mr. Popplewell

I ask the House to accept the Opposition Amendment. Unless the idea behind the Lords Amendment is rejected, a grave situation will arise. The main substance of this provision is designed to give power to the Board over the Commission. To do that we must consider the weighting of the Board and its constitution with its representatives of the competitors of the Commission. We see representatives of big business appointed and, when we realise who are the likely nominees of the Minister, most of us are filled with grave concern.

There will be only one representative from the Commission which is the undertaking whose commodities are to be sold as companies. Although the Commission's assets are involved, the Board will have complete power. There will be only one representative of the Commission among the six members of the Board. This is not a question of representatives being appointed from the various sides of industry and taking up full-time jobs. So far as we can gather, membership of the Board will be on a part-time basis. That is another cause for suspicion. The members will follow their normal vocations and continue to act as distributors of the assets of the Commission.

The House should look carefully at this matter. One does not want to refer too much to events which took place in the House earlier today, but one cannot help remembering the close association between the Minister and the United Dominions Trust. If we consider that Trust acting as snoopers within the industry and then we realise the type of appointments likely to be made to the Board, we feel considerably alarmed that these valuable national assets are being handed over to a particularly peculiar body for disposal.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

I know that my hon. Friend does not want to be unfair, and I am sure that he would agree that the Government have not completed the racket by putting the United Dominions Trust representative on the Board equally with the Road Haulage Association.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Popplewell

But there is a trend in that direction. Who can say that it will not be so? Who can say who will be appointed as trade and industry representative? We must look most suspiciously at the structure of the Board. What qualifications do the Board possess to assess the value of units to be disposed of as company assets? The Commission may decide what they think fit, but they cannot say what will be the particular assets that will be disposed of unless the Board agree. The Board will have complete power over the owner of the asset, and will be able to tell him how to dispose of his goods.

I suggest that this is a very serious matter indeed, because there are no technical qualifications in the membership of the Board. The only qualifications necessary are some knowledge of industry or some knowledge of operating A, B or C licences—the actual competitors of the Board. Would any business agree to such a set-up? If a business were in difficulties, would the people concerned call on the representatives of their competitors to sell their assets, or upon their purchasers to decide the value of those assets? There is no question of technical qualifications in deciding what is a useful administrative transport unit to build up into a company. There is no guiding light laid down to the Board to ensure that they get the best possible prices.

We attempted yesterday to secure the acceptance of an Amendment to provide that, when transport units were being sold as a public asset to private enterprise, there should be some safeguard in regard to the value of the asset, in the same way as, when assets were taken from private enterprise, they were taken over on a reasonable basis which was established and laid down in the Act. We feel that that arrangement is particularly appropriate in regard to transport units. We also feel that, since the Board are constituted as they are, in the disposal of these assets they should not be built up for handing over at knock-down prices, but that some technical guidance should be given in assessing the value of a company and its share value on the market.

It is most important that the owner of an undertaking should be able to decide on the extent of the loan which he wishes to raise if he is to try to establish a company, but under this set-up the owner of the undertaking will not have that power. His competitors, and in all probability the friends of the people who will buy the company, will be the people who will decide the value of the shares to be floated. Surely, we have to go a long way back in Parliamentary history before we come across such a sell-out.

We have in mind the association of the Minister with big business. We cannot overlook it. We remember the constant taunts made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were on these benches, against the men appointed to the national undertakings, calling them "Quislings." Now they are in power one wonders how far they will go in appointments to the Board, for disposing of their assets.

I do not suppose I shall get the Minister to agree to accept our Amendment. I would therefore ask the House to remember the Parliamentary Secretary's recent speech. Although he represents the British Transport Commission in this House, he makes speeches, as he did at Nottingham, that are totally devoid of the truth in regard to the Department which he represents, and one cannot help feeling a great amount of suspicion when appointments such as these are left in the hands of such people.

Mr. Manuel

What did he say?

Mr. Popplewell

It has been repeated many times. For all the reasons I have given, and in order to get a square deal for the Commission in the disposal of their assets by letting them be the deciding body in regard to the value to be placed upon the assets—it should not be the value placed upon them by the Commission's competitors—I ask the House to support the Amendment which has been so admirably moved by my two colleagues.

Mr. Maudling

There seems to be a certain amount of divided counsel on this matter on the Opposition benches. We are primarily considering the question whether the Commission shall be subject to the approval of the Board in deciding whether or not to adopt the company structure method of disposal.

I gather from Mr. Speaker's Ruling that it is suggested that we might take into account the really relevant points in the Lords Amendments in which reference is made to the approval of the Board. These are: that no invitation to tender for the disposal of shares should be issued without the approval of the Board; that the disposal of shares otherwise than by tender should be subject to the approval of the Board; and that no tender or offer for the shares shall be accepted or refused without the approval of the Board. The question raised in the Opposition Amendment is whether it is right that the Commission, in exercising the option to the extent given to them under the Lords Amendment, should be subject to this amount of control by the Disposal Board.

There has been a good deal of discussion on rather wider points, particularly in the wide-ranging and effective speeches of my hon. Friends, and on the general question of the Disposal Board, which is, of course, already embodied in the Bill as passed by this House and endowed with very definite and extensive functions. I do not want to rehearse— and I am sure it would be out of order if I tried—the arguments about the need for the Disposal Board and the nature of its composition.

Broadly speaking, the argument is that as we are asking the Commission to do a difficult task in disposing of their undertakings, when they themselves consider that it is not right and is a policy with which they disagree, and as we know that they will loyally carry out the policy laid down by Parliament, there is a lot to be said for having a Disposal Board of this kind, in the interests of all concerned, to supervise the carrying out of these obligations.

I come to the composition of the Board, of which we have heard a good deal. There is not very much point in going into the question in any detail. The attitude adopted today by hon. Members depends upon the attitude they adopt towards the good faith of the Minister

Mr. Mitchison

I understand that the hon. Gentleman's doubts about the Commission arise from the feeling that the Commission do not agree—and we know that they do not agree—with the Government's policy. How is the hon. Gentleman to assure himself that the Disposal Board will not disagree with the Government's policy? Is that the reason the Board are composed in the remarkable way in which they are and why there are so many representatives of the prospective buyers on the Board?

Mr. Maudling

I do not think that I should be drawn aside by the hon. and learned Member into arguments which are related to the original decision to establish the Disposal Board, a decision put in the Bill as approved by the House together with definite functions. In Clause 3 of the Bill the Disposal Board are given some very definite powers in connection with the sale of transport units. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that … no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board:… That is just an example, and there are others of them. The fact that in the case of disposal of transport units the Board should exercise these definite and far-ranging powers amounts to a general supervision of the disposal of transport units.

What we are now considering is the proposal in the Lords Amendment that in arranging an option, an alternative method of disposal through company structure rather than through transport units, the Disposal Board shall be given broadly the same powers in respect of company structure as they are given in respect of disposals of transport units. There is one exception, to which I will come in a moment. The Board are given powers to approve or refuse offers to tender, and so on, pari passu with the Board's original functions and the powers conferred by this House to dispose of transport units.

Having established in the Bill that we have approved a Disposal Board, and having given that Board far-ranging powers in the general process of disposal of transport unis, it would be completely illogical not to give the Board the same powers in relation to the alternative method of disposal by company structure. There is one point on which I agree that there is an extension beyond the general type of power given in the case of disposal by transport units. That is in the passage which we are considering in relation to the first Amendment to the Lords Amendment. It is that the Commission shall not exercise their option to dispose through company structure rather than through transport units without the approval of the Board.

I submit that this is only a logical extension of the whole process. One of the most important features of this process of disposal, as hon. Members have argued, is that the Board should supervise the general procedure. If the Board are going to supervise the general procedure of disposal, then they should be given powers to supervise what is an inherent and important element in that process of disposal—

Mr. Mitchison

Why is this collection of lorry owners considered competent to advise on questions of company policy and company formation and the like? Why, if the Government have their way, is the small man going to be present on this Disposal Board? Why is it considered that he knows whether disposal should be by company formation in a particular case?

Mr. Maudling

I know that the hon. and learned Member does not approve of the Disposal Board in any case and that he will argue that they should not be given powers over the disposal of transport units. That is not the point of view that was accepted by the House when they approved the Bill originally To omit this power and other powers provided by the Lords Amendment would be utterly illogical in the light of the composition of the Board and the powers given to it by the Bill as already approved by this House.

10.0 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice (Sheffield, Neepsend)

The Economic Secretary has, as he has always done, given us a very thoughtful and courteous reply. I am bound to say, however, that he did not seem to me to begin to answer the many objections that were advanced by my hon. Friends who spoke before he did.

May I put this position to him? My hon. Friends, obviously, do not like the Disposal Board. They do not trust it. They think that its composition will make it unreliable for the purpose for which it is devised, and they wish it were not in the Bill at all. What the Economic Secretary said in answer to that was this, "I recognise that the Commission has an extremely difficult task. It is a task which is made more difficult by reason of the fact that the Commission do not like the Government's policy and think it all wrong. Recognising, as I do, that the task is extremely difficult and utterly distasteful to the Commission, I propose to make it still more difficult and distasteful by hampering every single activity of the Commission by the potential veto of the Board"—which hon. Members on this side of the House thoroughly distrust. That is the argument.

Mr. Maudling

My argument was that the potential veto to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers has already been accepted by this House over a wide proportion of the process of disposal.

Sir F. Soskice

Accepted by a majority of this House representing a minority of the electorate in relation to other parts of the Bill—not those parts which deal with company structure.

We were told by the Minister when he spoke on the Report stage that the Commission had most strongly urged that the limited application of the company principle would not only facilitate disposal but would much help them in dealing with their highly complicated internal problems. That, I suppose, is a polite and euphemistic way of describing highly difficult and distasteful problems. They had, therefore, I suppose, in an attempt to escape from the shackles with which they were fettered, asked that there should be some company structure. That idea had emanated from other sources as well. The hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) suggested something of the sort.

We also put down for the Committee stage of the Bill—although, unfortunately, it was not selected—a similar proposal. We proposed that in order that these units of transport should not be, as it were, thrown away, in order that there should be some guarantee to the public that in the absence of a reserve price, at any rate, the loss should not be disproportionately great, it should be possible for the Commission, by using a company structure and passing the units to companies and then gradually selling off the shares of the companies as and when it seemed appropriate so to do and as and when the shares in small or large parcels could be advantageously disposed of, to carry out their distasteful task.

That is what we proposed, and we did so to give some elbow room to the Commission, to give some guarantee to the public that instead of being forced by a kind of rigid injunction to load these transport units on to the public, they should have some real discretion, some real elbow room to give themselves time to try to get a good price and to sell on really advantageous terms. That is what we proposed and we are very glad to see that the Government have been able to accept, to some extent, that company structure.

When one looks a bit further on the Order Paper one finds that the shares have to be sold in one single unit. One of the main advantages of the proposition that we advanced was that there would be some elasticity in the disposal, in that the shares could be gradually parcelled out. That, of course, goes altogether when one has this rigid system which requires all the shares to be dumped in one single sale. The degree to which the Commission are facilitated by the Government's acceptance of the company structure is very limited.

I now return to what my hon. Friends, one after the other, have advanced as the main reason for the Amendment which we are now discussing. Difficult as this companies structure makes the task which the Commission has reluctantly to perform, the Government have, in addition, put upon their neck this Disposal Board. There would have been much more justification for so doing if it were the function of the Board to guide and not to inhibit, and if the Board were—as it appeared in the course of the debate it was not—so constituted as to command some slight degree of confidence on this side of the House.

Neither of those conditions has been fulfilled. One after another, my hon. Friends—not only in the course of the discussion of this Amendment but over and over again in the debates on this Bill —have voiced their very deep anxieties about the probable composition, of the Board and the way in which its members may be tempted to act. My hon. Friends are acutely anxious and concerned about that matter. The Minister and the Economic Secretary are forcing upon the Commission a Board which is highly suspect from its very beginnings.

This is a Board in this particular part of the Bill which is not simply entrusted with the duty of guiding, helping and facilitating the Commission; it is enabled to put an absolute block on anything which the Commission may wish to do. The Economic Secretary not only admits that, but goes out of his way to point out that—for some reason which he did not indicate and which we find it extremely difficult to discern—with a company structure the powers of the Board are more extensive than they are if lorries are disposed of in the form of road units.

The Economic Secretary referred to Clause 3 (7), which contains the major powers of the Board in relation to the disposal of lorries in the form of road units, and it has been pointed out that the powers given to the Board are far more extensive when we look at the proviso which we are now seeking to remove. They are capable of stifling the Commission altogether. The Commission are trussed up like a dead chicken. They really cannot act if they have this Disposal Board sitting on their neck.

Mr. Maudling

My point was that the more extended power of the Disposal Board arises from the fact that a choice is to be created, and they are given the power of supervision over that choice. That situation could not have existed before.

Sir F. Soskice

That may be the Economic Secretary's point, but the fact remains that if the Commission choose to resort to this method of company disposal in an endeavour to avail themselves of some slight extra facilities, they find themselves, as the Economic Secretary pointed out, inhibited and checked in almost every activity upon which they may want to embark by the powers of the Board which are conferred by the proviso which we are trying to remove.

Although I always have the greatest respect for the contributions of the Economic Secretary, on this occasion he did not do himself justice or live up to the very high standard which we expect from him. We have always been used to elucidation and help from him. I hope that he and the Minister will give further thought to the arguments which have been advanced. They proceed from an acute anxiety as to the impartiality of the Board which is likely to be set up pursuant to the powers contained in this Bill.

My hon. Friends do not trust the Board and they do not like to see them furnished with these very drastic powers to control and check the activities of the Commission. I ask the Economic Secretary whether he really thinks it fair, speaking as a Minister, wholly to disregard and ride roughshod over the apprehensions which, one after another, my hon. Friends have expressed. Does he think it is fair, knowing that those apprehensions exist and are universally felt on this side of the House, to let this Bill go forward with the Board entrusted with these extremely drastic powers? I put it to him that, as a matter of fairness, it is not. I hope that he and the Minister will give further consideration to our arguments.

May I make it quite clear that we welcome the extension in the Commission's powers which are contained in the embodiment in the Bill of the company structure. That is undoubtedly important. But we should like to see a company structure made far more elastic, in particular by an Amendment which we have later on the Order Paper, and which we hope will be selected, to leave out the requirement that the shares are to be sold in one parcel. If that is selected we shall have an opportunity of voicing our difficulties upon it, but in the meantime I earnestly ask the Economic Secretary to think again on the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends and see whether he can leave out the proviso, which is simply one of a series of provisions in the Lords Amendment which my hon. Friends cordially dislike.

My hon. Friends would like to see the Commission enabled to act in the public interest, uninhibited by this Board and I profoundly hope that, when it as pointed out to the Economic Secretary how deeply my hon. Friends feel their anxieties, he will think again and agree that the proviso should be omitted.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

I am prompted to take part in the discussion wholly by the speech of the Economic Secretary. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), I feel that normally one has a regard for the Economic Secretary and his contributions somewhat higher than one has for many of the other occupants of the Treasury Bench, but I cannot help saying that tonight not only did he not do himself justice but he treated the House with an element of disdain which I can only suspect came from the fact that the Government forced him to sit up all last night and that he is now beginning slightly to lose his grip.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked him what I thought was a wholly proper and pertinent question. He asked why the hon. Member thought that a Board composed in this way, with the particular interests which are to be represented on it, should be regarded as competent to decide whether, in the words of the Lords Amendment, it "is expedient" and "will not prejudice" the other considerations for the company structure method of disposal to be adopted. It is no answer to that question to say, "I know you do not like the Disposal Board anyway. I know you do not trust it. There it is; you do not and we do, and it is a matter of opinion."

I am not for the moment expressing any view about the competence, the trustworthiness and the desirability of the Disposal Board when the transport unit system of disposal is adopted. That is in the Bill. But now we are putting into the Bill an altogether different proposition. We are saying that the Transport Commission shall have the power to decide, if it appears to them to be expedient, to dispose of their property by a company structure method, and if they are satisfied that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which they have to have regard in subsection (3), they may then proceed to dispose of it in this way.

It seems to me perfectly proper to put that responsibility on to the Commission. It then leaves for subsequent discussion within the Amendment all considerations which would have to be taken into account in inviting tenders for the shares. It may be that the Economic Secretary could put an argument for the Disposal Board in subsequent instances. I do not know, but for the moment he was addressing himself to this particular proviso. I can see no reason at all for thinking that a Board constituted in the way this one is to be constituted, with representatives of the A, B and C licence holders, and representatives of trade and industry, should be the party to veto this particular decision.

10.15 p.m.

I would observe, by the way, that nothing could be clumsier than this drafting of a Parliamentary Bill. We have a long Clause setting out that a certain body is responsible, and setting out the considerations on which they are to exercise responsibility, and then the heart of the same Clause is virtually repeated in another subsection, this time mentioning some other body altogether. It would have been far better to have chosen the right body first of all and then to have put in a provision about consultation with somebody else. All that the hon. Gentleman had to tell us was that it would be illogical not to do it. That is not an argument. That is not meeting the case. At least, he should tell us why it is illogical. What is there that makes it logical?

I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that representatives of the A, B and C licence holders and of trade and industry may have something to contribute. I can see the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) looking at me. I say I can understand that, but I do not think any case has been made so far for this proposal from the standpoint of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can understand the argument for having these people on the Board, but I cannot understand the argument that it would be illogical that the same people should not be able to veto whether a proposal is expedient or not, or would prejudice anything or not. We are being asked to insert here a proposal which, in the words of the Economic Secretary, it would be illogical not to insert. I say it is illogical to insert it.

Mr. Callaghan

I think my right hon. Friend will, perhaps, find the explanation of the inconsistency of this in the fact that the Government accepted this proviso in another place as the result of an Amendment moved by their own supporters.

Mr. Brown

It is quite apparent to us from the lavish support they have had from those benches what an extremely wide understanding there is amongst Government supporters for this particular action. However, whatever are the reasons for accepting it, the Economic Secretary has made no case for it at all. I have no bias in this matter. I am prepared to listen to the case. I was even prepared to say the other argument had gone by the board. I have no feeling that something I have said has been ignored. I came in to listen to the case, and, having listened, I say that the Government's case is, "You do not like the Disposal Board, and we do."

Sir John Crowder (Finchley)

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Mr. Deputy-Speaker does not?

Mr. Brown

I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, "I am not interested. I could not care less."

Sir J. Crowder

No.

Mr. Brown

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants me to lengthen the discussion, which I am not altogether unwilling to do. However, I have far more reason than most people on that side of the House for having a very great interest in this matter. I discussed this at a previous stage of the Bill. I do not want to go all over that again, but since this affects the livelihood and interests of thousands of people for whom some of us have a direct responsibility, we are bound to try to see that the thing is done in the right way.

Sir J. Crowder

I quite agree. I only pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman said, "You could not care less," which meant Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Brown

Then I did the hon. Gentleman rather more than an injustice in assuming that he had an argument to put. If all he was doing was saying that I used the word "You" when referring to the Minister, I accept the correction, although I have no doubt that Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Minister, and the Economic Secretary knew exactly to whom I was referring.

In order to get the argument clear, I am sure the House would give the Economic Secretary leave to speak again; or, if the Minister does not want him to speak again, perhaps he could do it. Let them tell us what the case is, and, from their own standpoint, how far the position is improved by using this wholly irrelevant body to veto the Commission's decision about whether the company structure is the right thing. Tell us who on this Board has the qualifications which make him a good adviser on such a subject, let alone the exerciser of a veto. The Minister has not done that. If my hon. Friend's Amendment has to go to a Division without any greater case than the one we have already had from the Economic Secretary, I hope that not only my hon. and right hon. Friends, but some hon. Members opposite who are concerned for Parliamentary discussion and for sensible decisions will have the courage to support us on this occasion.

Mr. Mitchison

Listening to this very interesting discussion, I have been trying to picture to myself a meeting of this Board to consider whether or not a company should be formed to dispose of certain lorries. Let us, for a moment, imagine who they will be. There will be the representative of the A and B licence holders. For the sake of safety, we will call him John Doe. Then there will be the representative of the C hauliers, whom we will christen Richard Roe. The two of them will be old friends. John Doe, of course, will have had some lorries taken over by the British Transport Commission, and no doubt he will not want to buy them back again. That might put him into some direct difficulty under the Bill.

But he and his friends have their views, and very marked views, about nationalisation. They are not particularly concerned with the efficiency of public services, but they are very much concerned with the question of the price at which public lorries are going to be bought back. The C haulier, Mr. Richard Roe, will no doubt be one of the group who have been buying their own lorries to carry their own goods out of very marked political views—and there are such people, quite a lot of them, in the country.

In addition, we shall have trade and industry represented. I am not quite sure who that will be. I am not quite certain that Mr. Gibson Jarvie would really qualify. But there will be someone or other representing trade and industry. I suppose that they will get together in a room, perhaps it will be in the Ministry— there will be advantages in having it there—and then there will be a miserable representative of the Commission to come into this group of old friends charged with keeping touch, as it were, between the Commission and the Board, and he will form, I think, a minority of one in quite a lot of their decisions.

Then the door will open, perhaps from the Minister's room next door, and in will come the chairman and the deputy-chairman who have no qualifications except that the Minister has selected them. They may know nothing whatever about lorries, companies or anything else. For all I know, they may be experienced in some matter totally unconnected with these matters. I have not the foggiest idea what kind of people they will be or what kind of people they ought to be.

But I do not think that the composition of this precious Board is going to matter very much, because if at any moment when settling a question of company formation they fail to comply with the wishes of the chairman, then it does not matter that everyone else in the room is against him, it does not matter that everyone else who has any qualifications on paper connected with the transport industry disagrees completely with him, all that has to happen is for the chairman to say, "There is no dispute" and off they will go to the Minister.

I have never seen such an extraordinary Board of stooges as this Board is going to be. This is a Board which is put there not merely, as someone put it, to exercise a veto, but as a body without the approval of which the Commission cannot take a single step forward. What we have to consider is whether this is the right sort of body to decide on the following question: there is a fleet of lorries somewhere or another which have to be sold. They have to be sold having regard, first of all, to getting the best price; next, to the continuity of a proper and reasonable service to the public, including the needs of the public; and the question will be whether they are to be sold by forming a company or as a transport unit? What possible qualification has this extraordinary collection of stooges put up by the Minister in this Bill for deciding a question of that sort?

The Minister would be just as well advised to appoint a collection of stockbrokers who know nothing about lorries as to appoint a collection of lorry owners who know nothing about companies. What possible point is there in this? The fact of the matter is that the composition, nature and character of this Board was put in the Bill long before any suggestion about company formation was made. It was put in at a time when there was no question about company formation, no question of deciding whether the transport should be sold by forming companies or whether it should be sold in the form of transport units. The Minister had not thought about it.

Then it was said, "The stooges look all right." Now they do not even look all right. When we come to think of our John Doe and Richard Roe and the rest of them put in as a facade of respectability to his extraordinary collection of individuals who are to decide these problems, could there be any body more incompetent to do so?

10.30 p.m.

We on this side of the House know quite well that behind the Government and throughout the whole of this Bill lurk the Road Haulage Association and their friends the road hauliers, who helped them in the last Election and whose votes they think are worth while. Now that the Government's attention has been directed to it, ought they not really to take the trouble to be a little more sensible than they appear to be at present?

If they accepted this Amendment, a certain amount of harm would be done by this debate, but their reputation has had quite a lot to suffer already, and a little more or less would not make much difference. Nothing would appear on the Statute Book to make them look quite so silly as they will look if they leave this Clause as it is.

In these circumstances, let them have regard for posterity, for by posterity they will be judged. Considering that this is all going to be printed by the Queen's Printer and is going to become the law of the land, might they not exercise in the terms of the statute a little of the sense they have completely failed to exercise in the course of these discussions and in the form of the Amendment as it was forced upon them in the Lords?

From our point of view, the Government represent the extreme of reaction, but if one goes to another place one finds those who can force upon the Government something even more reactionary— this proviso which we seek to have omitted.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I hope this proviso will be left out of the Bill for a variety of reasons of which I shall mention but three. I shall try not to cover any of the ground already covered by previous speakers. The first reason is that the proviso is repugnant to the rest of the Clause and, indeed, to the rest of the relevant parts of the Bill. The second is that it deprives the Commission of power and initiative, a matter which has been fully argued by earlier speakers. The third is that it constitutes a roundabout way and a very inelegant way of trying to do what, in fact, the Government has in mind.

I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has come back, and I am sure he will agree with me out of his wide and vast knowledge of the law that he has never seen a greater conflict of ideas gathered together in a few kindred subsections and provisos than we witness in this Clause and in the proviso. In three relevant pieces of embryo legislation a number of powers are given and taken away in such a wanton fashion that they conflict with one another.

If we take the Clause and the proviso, and Clause 3 (3), to which reference is made in the Clause, it at once becomes evident that the Commission are given certain powers to use if expedient and if they do not prejudice certain purposes. The proviso then goes on to say that the Commission shall not exercise such powers without the permission of the Board. Then we go on and find that the Board shall not give approval unless they are satisfied that certain courses of action and certain pieces of expediency occur, and that it would not prejudice certain purposes, having regard to Clause 3 (3).

In order to substantiate the argument that I am attempting to put to the House, it is with regret that it is necessary for me to detain hon. Members for a few minutes in order to refer to the actual words of these three pieces of embryo legislation. The Clause begins: If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may do certain things. I am shortening it for the purpose of shortening my speech. We now come to the proviso which says: Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid. I wonder if the Attorney-General or if any Attorney-General ever came across a more inelegant, complicated or almost meaningless piece of legislation. But the matter does not end there. If we look at Clause 3 (3), we see that it says: In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender as aforesaid, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision.… I spare the House the rest of that Clause, but is it not evident that those three pieces of embryo legislation conflict with one another, and even if they did not con-

flict, I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that he could find a better, clearer and shorter way of expressing the idea which these three nonentities purport to express?

For those three reasons, which I have put as briefly as I can having regard to the complicated nature of this Bill, I hope that the House will reject this proviso in order to introduce a little simplicity, if that be possible, into this complicated, vague and almost meaningless Measure.

Sir Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) 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, 277; Noes, 254.

Division No. 144.]	AYES	[10.40 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Cranborne, Viscount	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Alport, C. J. M.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hay, John
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crouch, R. F.	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Heald, Sir Lionel
Arbuthnot, John	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Heath Edward
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Higgs, J. M. C.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Davidson, Viscountess	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Baldwin, A. E.	Deedes, W. F.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Banks, Col. C.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hirst, Geoffrey
Barber, Anthony	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Barlow, Sir John	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Donner, P. W.	Holt, A. F.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Doughty, C. J. A	Hope, Lord John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Drayson, G. B.	Horobin, I. M.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Duncan, Capt, J. A. L.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Erroll, F. J.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Birch, Nigel	Fell, A.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bishop, F. P	Finlay, Graeme	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Black, C. W.	Fisher, Nigel	Hurd, A. R.
Bossom, A. C	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Bowen, E. R.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'brgh W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A	Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Hyde Lt -Col H. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fort, R.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Braine, B. R.	Foster, John	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Jennings, R.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Kaberry, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Gammans, L. D.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Bullard, D. G.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Kerr, H. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Lambert, Hon. G.
Burden, F. F. A.	Godber, J. B.	Lambton, Viscount
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Lancaster, Col. C. G
Campbell, Sir David	Gough, C. F. H.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Carr, Robert	Gower, H. R.	Law. Rt. Hon. R. K
Cary, Sir Robert	Graham, Sir Fergus	Leather, E. H. C.
Channon, H.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Grimond, J.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lindsay, Martin
Cole, Norman	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Linstead, H. N.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Harden, J. R. E.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Longden, Gilbert
Low, A. R. W.	Partridge, E	Storey, S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Perkins, W. R. O.	Summers, G. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Peto, Brig. C. H. M	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
McCallum, Major D.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Macdonald, Sir Peter	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
McKibbin, A. J.	Pitman, I. J.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Powell, J. Enoch	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Maclean, Fitzroy	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Profumo, J. D.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Raikes, Sir Victor	Tilney, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Rayner, Brig, R.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Turner, H. F. L
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Turton, R. H.
Markham, Major S. F.	Renton, D. L. M.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Vane, W. M. F.
Marples, A. E.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Robson-Brown, W.	Vosper, D. F.
Maude, Angus	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Wade, D. W.
Maudling, R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Russell, R. S.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mellor, Sir John	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Molson, A. H. E.	Salter, Rt Hon. Sir Arthur	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E	Scott, R. Donald	Watkinson, H. A.
Nabarro, G. D. N	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Nicholls, Harmar	Shepherd, William	Wellwood, W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Snadden, W. McN.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Nutting, Anthony	Soames, Capt. C.	Wills, G.
Oakshott, H. D.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Odey, G. W.	Speir, R. M.	Wood, Hon. R
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	York, C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Stevens, G. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Mr. Studholme and
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Mr. Redmayne.
Osborne, C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
NOES
Adams, Richard	Collick, P. H	Glanville, James
Albu, A. H.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda.	Gooch, E. G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cove, W. G.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Awbery, S. S.	Crosland, C. A. R.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Crossman, R. H. S.	Grey, C. F.
Baird, J.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Balfour, A.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bartley, P.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hale, Leslie
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Bence, C. R	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hamilton, W. W.
Benson, G.	Deer, G.	Hannan, W.
Beswick, F.	Delargy, H. J.	Hargreaves, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Dodds, N. N.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham. E.)
Blackburn, F.	Donnelly, D. L.	Hastings, S.
Blenkinsop, A.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hayman, F. H.
Blyton, W. R.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Boardman, H	Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G	Edelman, M.	Herbison, Miss M.
Bowles, F. G.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Hewitson, Capt. M
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Hobson, C. R.
Brockway, A. F.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Holman, P.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Houghton, Douglas
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Fernyhough, E.	Hoy, J. H.
Burke, W A.	Fienburgh, W.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Burton, Miss F. E	Finch, H. J.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Callaghan, L. J.	Follick, M.	Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Carmichael, J.	Foot, M. M.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Forman, J. C.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Champion, A J.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Chapman, W D	Freeman, John (Watford)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Chetwynd, G. R	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Janner, B.
Clunie, J.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Coldrick, W.	Gibson, C. W.	Jeger, George (Goole)

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Oldfield, W. H	Sparks, J. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Oliver, G. H	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Orbach, M.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Joins, David (Hartlepool)	Oswald, T.	Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Padley, W. E	Swingler, S T.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Paget, R. T.	Sylvester, G. O.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Keenan, W.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
King, Dr. H. M.	Pannell, Charles	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Pargiter, G. A	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)	Parker, J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Paton, J.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Pearson, A.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Lewis, Arthur	Peart, T. F.	Thornton, E.
Lindgren, G. S	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Timmons, J.
Logan, D. G.	Poole, C. C.	Tomney, F.
MacColl, J. E	Popplewell, E.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
McGhee, H. G	Porter, G.	Usborne, H. C.
McGovern, J.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Wallace, H. W.
McInnes, J.	Price, Philips (Gloucestwshire, W)	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
McLeavy, F.	Proctor, W. T.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Pryde, D. J.	Wells, William (Walsall)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	West D. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Mainwaring, W. H.	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Rhodes, H.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Richards, R.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Manuel, A. C.	Robens, Rt. Hon, A.	Wigg, George
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Mason, Roy	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Wilkins, W. A.
Mayhew, C. P	Rogers, George (Kensington, H.)	Willey, F. T.
Mellish, R. J.	Ross, William	Williams, David (Neath)
Mikardo, Ian	Royle, C.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Mitchison, G. R	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Monslow, W	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Moody, A. S.	Short, E. W.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Morley, R.	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Horns, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. S)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Mort, D. L.	Skeffington, A. M.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Moyle, A.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Wyatt, W. L.
Mulley, F. W	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)	Yates, V. F.
Murray, J. D	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Nally, W.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Snow, J. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Sorensen, R. W.	Mr. Bowden and
O'Brien, T.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Question put accordingly, "That 'Provided' stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 276; Noes, 253.

Division No. 145.]	AYES	[10.50 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Braine, B. R.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Cuthbert, W. N.
Alport, C J. M	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Davidson, Viscountess
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Arbuthnot, John	Brooman-White, R. C.	Deedes, W. F.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T	Digby, S. Wingfield
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bullard, D. G.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Burden, F. F. A.	Donner, P. W.
Baldwin, A. E.	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Doughty, C. J. A
Banks, Col. C.	Campbell, Sir David	Drayson, G. B.
Barber, Anthony	Carr, Robert	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Barlow, Sir John	Cary, Sir Robert	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Channon, H.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Erroll, F. J
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Fell, A.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Finlay, Graeme
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Cole, Norman	Fisher, Nigel
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Conant, Maj R. J. E.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Birch, Nigel	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Bishop, F. P.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fort, R.
Black, C. W.	Cranborne, Viscount	Foster, John
Bossom, A. C.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bowen, E. R.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A	Crouch, R. F.	Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Boyle, Sir Edward	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D.(Pollok)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Gammans, L. D.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Robson-Brown, W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Longden, Gilbert	Roper, Sir Harold
Godber, J. B.	Low, A. R. W.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Russell, R. S.
Gough, C. F. H.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cower, H. R.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Graham, Sir Fergus	McCallum, Major D.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Scott, R. Donald
Grimond, J.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	McKibbin, A. J.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Harden, J R. E.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Snadden, W. McN.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Soames, Capt. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Speir, R. M.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hay, John	Markham, Major S. F.	Stevens, G. P.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Marples, A. E.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Heath, Edward	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Maude, Angus	Storey, S.
Higgs, J. M. C.	Maudling, R.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Summers, G. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythernshawe)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Hirst, Geoffrey	Mellor, Sir John	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Molson, A. H. E.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Holt, A. F.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hope, Lord John	Nicholls, Harmar	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Horobin, I. M.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Horsbrugh Rt. Hon. Florence	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Tilney, John
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Nutting, Anthony	Turner, H. F. L
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Oakshott, H. D.	Turton, R. H.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Odey, G. W.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hurd, A. R.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Vane, W. M. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Vosper, D. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Wade, D. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-mare)	wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Osborne, C.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Jennings, R	Partridge, E.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Peto, Brig. C. H. M	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Kaberry, D.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Watkinson H. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward	Pickthorn, K. W. M	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Kerr, H. W.	Pilkington, Capt R. A	Wellwood, W.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Pitman, I. J.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Lambton, Viscount	Powell, J. Enoch	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Lancaster, Col. C. G	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Profumo, J. D.	Wills, G.
Leather, E. H. C.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Rayner, Brig. R	Wood, Hon. R
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Rees-Davies, W. R	York, C
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T	Remnant, Hon. P.
Lindsay, Martin	Renton, D. L M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Linstead, H. N.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.
NOES
Adams, Richard	Blackburn, F.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Albu, A. H.	Blenkinsop, A	Champion, A. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Blyton, W. R.	Chapman, W. D.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Boardman, H.	Chetwynd, G. R.
Awbery, S. S.	Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G	Clunie, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Bowles, F. G.	Coldrick, W.
Baird, J.	Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Collick, P. H.
Balfour, A.	Brookway, A F.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J	Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Cove, W. G.
Bartley, P.	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Crosland, C. A. R.
Bence, C R	Burke, W. A.	Crossman, R. H. S.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Burton, Miss F. E.	Cullen, Mrs. A.
Benson, G.	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Beswick, F.	Callaghan, L J.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Carmichael, J.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Rhodes, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Richards, R.
Deer, G.	Keenan, W.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Delargy, H. J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dodds, N. N.	King, Dr. H. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Donnelly, D. L.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Ross, William
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Royle, C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Edelman, M.	Lewis, Arthur	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Lindgren, G. S.	Short, E. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Logan, D. G.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	MacColl, J. E.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	McGhee, H. G.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	McGovern, J.	Skeffington, A. M.
Fernyhough, E.	McInnes, J.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fienburgh, W.	McLeavy, F.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Finch, H. J.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)
Follick, M.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Snow, J. W.
Foot, M. M.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Sorensen, R. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Freeman, John (Watford)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Sparks, J. A
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Manuel, A. C.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibson, C. W.	Mason, Roy	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Glanville, James	Mayhew, C. P.	Swingler, S. T.
Gooch, E. G.	Mellish, R. J.	Sylvester, G. O.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Mikardo, Ian	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mitchison, G. B.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Grenfell Rt. Hon. D. R.	Monslow, W.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Grey, C. F.	Moody, A. S	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Morley, R.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hale, Leslie	Mort, D. L.	Thornton, E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Moyle, A.	Timmons, J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Mulley, F. W	Tomney, F.
Hamilton, W. W.	Murray, J. D.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hannan, W.	Nally, W.	Usborne, H. C.
Hargreaves, A.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Wallace, H. W.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)
Hastings, S.	O'Brien, T.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hayman, F. H.	Oldfield, W. H	Wells, William (Walsall)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Oliver, G. H.	West, D. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Orbach, M.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Herbison, Miss M.	Oswald, T.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Padley, W. E.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hobson, C. R	Paget, R. T.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Holman, P.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Wigg, George
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Houghton, Douglas	Palmer, A. M. F.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hoy, J. H.	Panned, Charles	Willey, F. T.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pargiter. G. A	Williams, David (Neath)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Parker, J	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Paton, J.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hynd, H. (Acorington)	Pearson, A	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Peart, T. F	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Poole, C. C.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Popplewell, E.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Janner, B.	Porter, G.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Wyatt, W. L.
Jeger, George (Goole)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Yates, V. F.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Proctor, W. T	Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Pryde, D. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Mr. Bowden and
		Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I beg to move, an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), after "Provided," to insert: that if the said shares have not been disposed of by the end of year nineteen hundred and fifty-four the Commission may retain all or part thereof: Provided also. The new Claues which has come from their Lordships' House is drawn on the basis that all the shares of a given under-taking or company should be sold in one parcel. This matter has been argued, up to a point, in relation to previous Lords Amendments. We are doubtful whether the shares will be sold in one parcel. It is uncertain whether a tenderer will be willing to tender for the whole of the shares. Moreover, in so far as it has been a steady Government argument that the little man should be catered for, it is contradictory to that argument that the shares should be sold in one parcel.

Therefore, we would prefer to go upon the basis that the whole of the shares may, or may not, be sold in one parcel. It may well be the case that a number of the shares will be sold over a period and that a considerable number will be left in the hands of the Transport Commission. [Interruption] I am told I may be wrong about the one parcel argument, but it will emerge in the course of the arguments on later Amendments to the Lords Amendments.

In any case, it is not desirable to assume that all the shares are to be sold. If at the end of 1954, it so happens that a number of shares—maybe a small number, a substantial number, or a large number—are left in the hands of the Commission, what is the situation which will emerge then? It is that at that point there will be no certainty as to the future of the undertaking. There will be instability; there will be difficulty; there will be uncertainty. Consequently, the management will not know where they are from week to week. The proprietary control may be in one hand in one month and in other hands in another. The workpeople will lack all security of tenure. It seems to us, therefore, desirable that something should be done to enable stability to be reached. The other point is that at the end of 1954 the 25-mile radius restriction comes to an end, and that is another reason why everybody should know where he stands.

The purpose of our Amendment is to provide that the shares remaining in the hands of the Commission can be retained in whole or in part in the hands of the Commission themselves. It does not follow that they will refuse to sell any more of the shares, but they can retain the shares in whole or in part that are left upon their hands. In that situation the control of the further sale of the shares would be within the powers of the (Commission, and they should be able to ensure more stability than would otherwise be the case.

There is no need to provide in the Bill that there should be an obligation on the Commission to get rid of these things in any circumstances. They are told to dispose of the shares to companies that they are going to form as soon as practicable. No doubt the Commission will act in good faith under that direction of the statute if the statute so passes, but it may not be practicable. In which case, what happens? It seems to us that the sensible course is to provide that if, at the end of 1954, some of the shares remain in the hands of the Commission they should have the discretion to retain all or part of them. Thereby the situation will remain to a considerable extent within the control of the Commission, and a chaotic situation, which might have grave consequences for the workpeople, may be avoided.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

In this very friendly atmosphere it is a comfort to me, as one who found himself off the line in the early hours of today, in replying to a debate on an Amendment, to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), with all his experience, capable of doing the same thing. It is good to know that we all make mistakes. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that this suggestion bears a strong family resemblance to one which we debated before the Bill left this House, to the effect that lorries not disposed of by a certain date might be retained by the Commission.

The argument with which I shall meet this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is much the same, too, as that used on that other occasion. I am not, in this atmosphere of co-operation and friendship, going to suggest that this is a wrecking Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has moved, but that it would have a hampering effect, and a seriously hampering effect at that, upon the policy of the Government. We have insisted from the very first day of the Committee stage, when almost the first topic we discussed was the membership of the Disposal Board, that the Board should proceed with all reasonable speed —"as quickly as is reasonably practicable." That also applies to the disposal of the shares.

If carried, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be bound inevitably to have a dilatory effect upon the Commission in disposing of their shares. I should have thought that that argument was self-evident. We believe that reasonable speed is the essence of the contract here, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, made in however good faith, would have the effect of slowing down that process. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] The end of 1954 might well arrive leaving the Commission—and the right hon. Gentleman himself hinted at this—with very large numbers of shares on their hands of which they had failed to dispose. I suggest that the position thus created would be invidious in the extreme, and the effect might well be that when the date arrived all that would have happened would be that the shares held by the Commission might have found their way into companies controlled by the Commission itself. That is the sort of thing which is bound to happen.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of stability. At the end of these long debates and after many discussions, we all know what it is that divides the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite have quite properly and legitimately endeavoured throughout these proceedings to take steps which would hamper Government policy in disposing whether of vehicles or of shares. We do not complain of that.

Mr. Paget

Perhaps the hon. Member can help me with one thing which I find puzzling. What is to happen to these shares if they cannot be sold?

Mr. Braithwaite

That is not the issue which we are discussing at the moment. What we are discussing, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, is whether shares not disposed of by a certain date —a date which he wishes to write in: 31st December, 1954—should be retained by the Commission.

Mr. H. Morrison

My argument was directed to the very point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) visualises. It is precisely because of those apprehensions, which I share, that within a reasonable time—and the end of 1954 is some time ahead—if the Commission have not disposed of the shares the situation will be left in the air. My hon. and learned Friend wants to know what will happen. I am trying to provide the answer by giving the Commission a discretion—it is not being a binding obligation—to retain them. My hon. and learned Friend's question is relevant and worthy of an answer.

Mr. Braithwaite

In the Amendment we are discussing a time limit. If that time limit were to be reached in a situation in which there were very large numbers of shares in the hands of the Commission, one imagines that what would happen would be one of two things—or probably both; they would either be re-formed in a more marketable manner or they would be disposed of as units. I want to keep to the narrow point, because this is a narrow point. We have not yet arrived at that situation, and what we are anxious to do —and I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) takes the point—is to dispose of as many shares as possible as quickly as possible. I am sure he will take the point when I suggest that it is a definite temptation to those anxious to retain control of a large number of shares, for whatever purpose, to know that all they have to do is to play out time until stumps are drawn.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Braithwaite

I hope I am not being discourteous, but at this stage I am only immediately following the right hon. Gentleman in order to place before the House the broad issue. There will be an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen to develop their points. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would hamper the smooth working of our policy, and I must suggest that the Amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. Paget

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the point I was putting. Let us assume that every effort is made to sell these shares, but that by the end of 1954 some are not sold. What is to happen to those shares? This Amendment simply provides that they may be retained, not that they must. If they may not be retained, and that is presumably what happens if this Amendment is rejected, what is to happen? Is this property to be given away? Is it to be sold at a completely knock-down price? Is it to be given to the United Dominions Trust? Is that one of their perquisites, and one of the ramifications of these mysterious bids? Surely we are entitled to know the future of this public property.

Mr. Braithwaite

I am sorry if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought I gave him a bad answer: I thought I gave him rather a good one. When the time comes, those responsible for the disposal, if they find themselves in a position where the shares have not gone, or they are landed with them, will undoubtedly do what others would do. They would reform the companies in a more marketable form, or dispose of the units. It is not for me to say whether they would seek as ready buyers the United Dominions Trust or the Co-operative Society, or anyone else.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

The hon. Gentleman assured us that the Government were opposing the Amendment on the ground that it would have a dilatory effect on the process of disposal described in this new Clause. But he was not able to tell us any reason why it should be expected to have that effect. Let us look at the whole context in which this process will be carried on. The Commission will not be operating the facility provided in this new Clause—the facility of disposing of property in this particular way—except with the consent of the Board, and that consent has to be given not only to the original proposal to try to dispose of property in this way, but it has to be given to almost every disposal of property in this way, which one sees if one follows the wording of the new Clause now.

The Commission, therefore, are carrying out their work under the most diligent supervision of the Board at every stage, and we know, of course, from the composition of the Board that its main desire, and, indeed, its main purpose, will be to return the public property to private hands at all costs, in all circumstances and as soon as possible. That is what the Board is for, as was clearly shown in discussions on previous Amendments.

If, therefore, it were possible for the Commission, by virtue of this proposed Amendment, to be dilatory, it would mean that the Board was simply not performing the job for which it was originally created, that the Government regarded it not only as an anti-social body, but had no faith in it to carry out the anti-social purpose for which it was created. Quite frankly, if the Government believe that the matter will work in the way they have described, it is quite out of the question that the Commission should be in a position to perform dilatory action merely by virtue of an Amendment of this kind.

Let us suppose that under this new Clause it is proposed to dispose of a certain amount of property in this way, that the Board has been satisfied that all the steps of procedure necessary have been taken and that the approval of the Board has been obtained, a Board concerned all the time with getting the public property sold, and yet, by the end of 1943, some of it is not sold.

If that is so, is it not at least possible that it has not been sold because there are good reasons, either of economics or public interest, why it should not pass into private hands? Nobody can question that that is at least a possibility. But what does the Parliamentary Secretary say? He says, in fact, "Never mind about all that, never mind about why it has not been sold, never mind about the possibility that it might be in the public interest for it to remain in public hands. If this Amendment is passed it will hamper the policy of the Government. We believe in selling the public property to our acquaintances. That is our policy, and we do not propose to have that policy interfered with, even if the public interest points in the other direction. So determined are we about it that even though we do not quite know"—as was apparent from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech—" what would happen to the shares in these circumstances, the one thing we are determined about is that they shall not remain public property."

That is a doctrinaire ideology run completely mad, and solely for the sake of that belief, without any regard for the general interest of the public as a whole, the Government intend to adopt that method of disposal. No attempt was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the forceful argument on grounds of public interest advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). Indeed, for some considerable time now it has been apparent from the speeches made from the Government Front Bench that there has been no serious attempt to answer any major argument advanced from this side of the House.

The Economic Secretary made no attempt in his speech to consider the arguments advanced, and I am afraid that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall have a similar speech planted on us. When he was asked the question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if the shares were not to be retained by the Commission what is to happen to them, he said that one of two other events, or possibly both, might happen. The first was that the companies will be reformed into more marketable form. In other words, despite all the presumed vigilance exercised by the Board in this process, apparently when on the first occasion it proved impossible to sell public property to private persons, a desperate attempt must be made to find some other means to dispose of the property, despite solid evidence that that was not a desirable way of disposing of it.

The alternative was that it was to be sold in units. If I understand that correctly, it means that the whole process described in this new Clause would be scrapped, even though it had been embarked upon by the Commission and only embarked upon after the Board had decided it was the right thing to do to dispose of the goods. They would revert to the other method of disposal. Only someone looking desperately for alternatives to public ownership would have put forward those two possibilities, because the rejection of the Amendment moved by this side of the House means that not only do the Government say, "We do not want all the shares that are unsold at the end of 1954," but they are going further and saying, "We insist that none of the shares that were unsold at the end of 1954 should remain on public hands."

The line of argument put up by the Parliamentary Secretary is something like this, "I have gone through a show of answering the arguments advanced in the public interest by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South but I do not propose seriously to answer them. I am concerned to see that the policy of the Government is carried through. The arguments concerned with the public interest are common sense and good economics, but they will not weigh with us. We are determined to carry through the policy of the sale of public property to private persons at all costs with as much speed as possible and with as little regard to the public interest as possible."

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I shall not keep the House more than a minute or two. It is quite clear why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should want to move an Amendment of this sort, because anything they can do, by fair means or foul, to secure that the Commission retains the maximum amount of property they will do. So we look at an Amendment of this sort with suspicion from the start. It is quite clear that the Government could never accept an Amendment of this kind. First of all. it conflicts with Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, where we find that a magnificent, stimulating and worthy task is laid upon the Commission to dispose as soon as is practical of all their property in this field.

In those circumstances, there is a high duty confronting the Commission, and for this purpose the Commission will have the Disposal Board at their side constantly stimulating them and helping them with suggestions of ways and means by which these shares can be sold. If that is not enough, there are great and small financial institutions up and down the country, which are worthy and reputable financial trusts, which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen represent as much as they represent some of their other constituents, which will play their part in this scheme. With all these great organisations and worthwhile societies there is no doubt that these shares will be sold and, what is more, sold exceedingly well. Any idea that the Government should depart from the central principle of the Bill, which is to secure the maximum provision for the sale of these shares with the utmost celerity, is beyond question, even at this late stage of the Bill.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I did not think that the argument of the noble Lord assisted the argument of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, because the noble Lord proceeded on the basis that the whole of the shares will be sold. If it turns out that the whole of the shares will have been disposed of by the end of 1954, then the Amendment which we are discussing—the Amendment to the Lords Amendment—will have no operation; because that is designed to cover the contingency that some of the shares will not be sold.

If he is right, and the financial companies, and the United Dominions Trust, and all the rest, buy up all these assets before the end of 1954 at a fair price, or something less than a fair price, then this Amendment would not come into operation. Therefore, on the assumption of the noble Lord, there can be no ground whatever for resisting the Amendment moved from this side of the House.

May I turn to the matter which is the subject of my brief remarks by saying that I thought the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary was even more appalling than his effort in the early hours of this morning. It seems clear that he has not understood what the Lords Amendments are about, and I am glad to see the Attorney-General with us again this evening. I should like to pursue the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. R. T. Paget) because I do think the House is entitled to know what will be the legal position under this proposed new Clause, as it stands, in the event of some of these shares not being sold by the end of 1954.

That is a contingency which must be envisaged because, although there is an obligation in subsection (1), there are also obligations elsewhere to ensure that these assets are disposed of at satisfactory prices; and the Commission would fail in its duty if it accepted less than that. Subsection (5) of the new Clause lays an express obligation on the Board, and the Commission, that no offer shall be accepted unless deemed reasonable and I should like to ask the Attorney-General this question.

Assuming that this Amendment is rejected, what will be the legal position of shares not sold at the end of 1954? I would have assumed— naturally, I accept whatever interpretation the Attorney-General may give— that if some of these shares are not sold by the end of next year they remain the property of the Commission, and that the Commission retains them. The only possible construction which can be placed on the subsection is that if they are not sold by the end of 1954 then it is the duty of the Commission to give them away. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting? Would the Attorney-General tell me whether I am right in thinking that, as the new Clause is drafted at the moment, in the event of some of these shares not being sold by the end of 1954 they remain the property of the Commission?

Mr. Paget

If my hon. Friend would permit me, what the Parliamentary Secretary told me was not that they would be given away but that the companies would be reconstructed, and what I have been trying to discover ever since is what power there is to reconstruct any of these companies. Are we to have a manuscript Amendment at a later stage?

Mr. Fletcher

I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I was coming on to that. It was quite apparent to me that when my hon. and learned Friend put the point to the Parliamentary Secretary the Parliamentary Secretary had not the faintest idea what the answer was. That is why he blathered something about the companies being re-formed. I do not know whether he thinks he knows what he means by saying that the companies would, somehow or other, be re-formed.

As my hon. and learned Friend says, there is no provision for companies to be re-formed. What does he mean when he talks about re-forming the companies? We are talking about shares in the companies formed under this subsection, the shares toeing the property of the Commission, and we are talking upon the hypothesis that some or all of the shares in a particular company formed under this subsection will not have been sold by the end of 1954. Obviously, that is a matter upon which the House must know what the position is.

I put two alternatives. One is that they will be retained anyhow, and the second, which I cannot conceive would be the policy even of this Government, is that they will be given away or thrown away at a knockout price. In a moment we are to have the advice of the Attorney-General, and I want to ask him this specific question. Does the Attorney-General accept the view that at the end of 1954, in the event of some of these shares not having been sold, the companies can then be re-formed?

There is no power in the subsection to authorise the re-formation of the com- panies. If the companies were re-formed, as I read the subsection, there would be no power to sell the shares in a company which had been re-formed. This is obviously another glaring example of slipshod and ill thought out legislation that has come to us from another place, and which we are being asked to accept without any clear or intelligent explanation from any of the Ministers involved of what the new Clause means.

In that situation, the first object of the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) moved, is to clarify the subsection and to make it abundantly plain that in the event of some of these shares not having been sold at the end of 1954, the Commission will retain them. That is implicit in the subsection as it stands. I think that that is the most probable explanation of the subsection. It may well be that the Attorney-General will tell us that these words are unnecessary, but even if he tells us that I still suggest that in the interests of making this matter abundantly clear the Government should accept the Amendment. That is the first proposition I want to advance.

The second proposition is that, even though there should be any doubt, there is the possibility that in the case of one or other of the companies that will be formed under the new Clause some shares may be sold and others may be unsold. I am perfectly well aware that the Clause provides for sale in one parcel, but there are other Amendments on the Order Paper for the elimination of those words, It seems to me far more sensible, when we come to deal with subsections (3) and (4), that the House will wish to amend the Clause so as to enable the Commission to have the greatest possible measure of flexibility, for selling either the whole in one parcel or selling one part and retaining the remainder, either temporarily or for a substantial period. That may be the best way for the Commission to discharge their duty of realising the assets in the best national interest.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

It seems to me that the hon. Member's argument is directed to an Amendment that will be taken later.

Mr. Fletcher

We are in the difficulty that the new Clause has not yet had a Second Reading, as it were, and we have to deal with each Amendment as we go along.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We cannot go on to discuss an Amendment that has not yet been reached.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should like to say to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) that we would have been perfectly prepared to have a general discussion on the new Clause if we could have arrived at some agreement as to how long it would take. There are 26 Amendments to the Clause, and provided that we had had an assurance that they would have been taken formally we would have been prepared to have had a general discussion.

We have had the hon. Member's argument before. It was advanced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). All this is part of the inevitable consequences of Parliamentary procedure; it has nothing to do with this Bill. We would be quite prepared to have a general discussion of the Amendments provided that, having done that, the Amendments would be taken formally.

Mr. Callaghan

That all depends, of course, upon the amount of time which the Minister thinks reasonable for the disposal of the Clause. In fact, we should have been finished with the whole new Clause and the Amendments by now under any sort of arrangement to which the Minister might have been prepared to come, but it does not seem to me to be a workable proposition.

Mr. E. Fletcher

You called me to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the point that I could not deal with the other Amendments which are on the Order Paper. With great respect, it seems to me that I must be entitled, in the process of arguing for the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, to deal with the matter either on the hypothesis of what the position would be if the Clause were accepted by the House as it stands, or on the hypothesis of some of the subsequent Amendments being passed.

I do not propose to argue for or against the merits of any of the subsequent Amendments, but I think the Minister must recognise that under the procedure, in dealing with my right hon. Friend's Amendment, we must look at the situation in the light of the fact that some of the subsequent Amendments may be passed or may be defeated. Under the procedure, that is the only way in which we can carry on this debate.

11.45 p.m.

What I was trying to say to the House in relation to the elucidation of the merits of my right hon. Friend's Amendment is that, in the event of a later Amendment being accepted, we shall find, at the end of 1954, the Commission owning some of the shares of one of these companies, but not all the shares. We may find that the Commission may realise that that is the best way of disposing of their assets. If that were the case at the end of 1954, it would be essential that the Commission should have the express power written into the Bill of being able to retain these shares. Therefore, for that reason as well, I very much hope that the House will clarify the present obscurity on this Clause and accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.

The Attorney-General

As a matter of courtesy to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I should like, if I can, to help him with regard to the legal point. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will be relieved to know that, on this occasion, I shall confine myself to legal considerations.

I have been asked two questions. The first was in regard to the position in which it is supposed that the Commission had not sold all the shares by the end of the year. Purely as a matter of law and the construction of subsection (3), the position is that they shall proceed to sell all the shares as soon as reasonably practicable. If it is not reasonably practicable, having regard to other conditions, to secure the disposal of the shares at that time, it will not require a profound knowledge of the law, common sense or the facts of life to know that some will still, therefore, be in their hands, and I would have thought that that was the answer to the first question.

The second question raised the point as to what can be done to a company in the way of reconstruction or rearrangement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, East is much better versed than I am in that branch of the law, and, under company law, he knows much better than I do that it does not require statutory provision to allow a company to operate under the Companies Act. So long as the company continue to comply with the provisions—that is to say, that they are a company within the terms of the Section—I cannot see that there is anything in the Act which prevents any rearrangement in the structure of the company such as may be required.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the subsection which applies limitations to the right of the company to dispose of their shares?

The Attorney-General

Subject to the limitations contained in the Section.

Mr. Paget

I cannot help feeling that a good deal of time might be saved to the House if the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in charge of this Bill were to get together outside and make up their minds what their Bill means, because we have had, once again, the same pathetic performance. The Parliamentary Secretary gets up to reply. He is, if he will forgive me saying so, "waffling" a little, but, at least, he made one point perfectly clear, and that was that the intention of the Government, and the intention of the Bill, was that these shares could not be retained after 1954.

Indeed, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made a vigorous contribution, which elicited enthusiastic head-noddings from the Minister, to the effect that it would be unsuitable for the Commission to be allowed to retain these shares. "Unthinkable," said the noble Lord. Then the Attorney-General got up and, when asked what happens in 1954 if the shares are not sold, said that the Commission retained them. Cannot they put their heads together and save us a little time by getting some agreement on this kind of question?

Mr. Braithwaite

It is the hon. and learned Gentleman who is "waffling." What I said was that to put in the Bill a definite provision that shares not sold by 31st December, 1954, could be retained, was, in my view, a temptation to dilatory conduct in disposing of them. I never said, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will not find it on record, that shares have to be disposed of by 31st December, 1954.

Mr. Paget

What the hon. Gentleman said was that they could not retain them after 1954. He finds himself at difference with the Attorney-General, and now with himself. When pressed on a previous occasion as to what they did when they found these shares on their hands in 1954, the hon. Gentleman's answer was that they would reconstruct or re-form the companies.

I am still very interested to know how that process takes place. To provide an explanation in a court, which is simply an invention to get out of a difficulty, is something which is sometimes described by an unparliamentary word, which I will certainly not bring in, but, it is a very odd thing to do. We have had the Attorney-General's assistance and he says that although no special powers to reconstruct or re-form the companies appears in this Bill, the companies have the power under the Companies Act and would reconstruct themselves under these powers. I ask the Attorney-General whether he has thought out that one.

These are somewhat special companies. The power to form is for particular purposes provided by this Bill. If one is going to re-form a company, that would mean changing the purposes hereby provided. I ask the Attorney-General whether he could give some illustration of the kind of reconstruction or re-forming which could take place in a company formed expressly under these powers, and particularly in view of subsections (11) and (13). Subsection (11) provides that A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

1. (a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and
2. (b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose_ of any of its property to the Commission,

but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property. It goes on: Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section. Subsection (13) says: Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1). Would the Attorney-General observe those words? Can he tell us what form of reconstruction or re-formation is available to a company with these limitations? It is a serious point and we are most anxious to know. I will give way to the Attorney-General. Will he tell us what reconstruction or reformation is available to a company under these very limited terms?

The Attorney-General

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants an answer I will tell him what I said before. There is absolutely no limitation whatever here on the exercise of the powers of a company under the Companies Act provided the conditions therein laid down as regards the purpose for which the company is being formed are being complied with.

Mr. Paget

But the whole trouble is the limitation of the purpose here, which makes reconstruction or re-formation quite impossible. Let us just take this a little bit further, because we are very interested in this point. I am sure that when the Parliamentary Secretary provides us with the intention of the Government in these very foreseeable circumstances he does that seriously. What form of re-forming the company or of reconstruction of the company is to be effected in the circumstances in which it is held? Can they form a private company? Can they form a public company? How does reform or reconstruction within the terms of this new Clause provide a solution as to the disposal of these shares that may remain on their hands in 1954? Is not the real answer that the Government simply have not considered this, and are in the same sort of muddle we are up against time and again?

The Attorney-General

I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an explanation, but I cannot enable him to understand it.

Mr. Paget

That is an observation that has been made on a good many occasions. It is not very original. But I am not the only one who has certain difficulty in understanding this. There are a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen here who have the difficulty, too. After all, it is the Government's job to make their intentions and their Bills comprehensible even to people with such limited intelligence as mine. That is what the Government are here for, and they have somewhat singularly failed. We are still very interested in the reconstruction or reformation of this company which we are told about. We want to know how it is to happen.

12 midnight.

The Commission have not been able to sell a company. What re-formation of that company will enable them to sell it? What had the Parliamentary Secretary in his mind when he told us that he knew the solution? That is what we want to know, and that is what nobody will tell us. We get unoriginal remarks like, "We can give you reasons, but we cannot give you the sense to understand it," but nobody here can discover what is the intention of the Government.

A great many of these companies may remain unsold in 1954. Many people may feel that this carcase of the national transport system may prove financially indigestible to them. Even if they are offered loans by the United Dominions Trust they may not want the company because they may think that another Government will come into office and that the people who tried to take part in this public robbery will regret it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is now going a little too far from the Amendment.

Mr. Paget

Is that really so? Surely, when we are considering what is to be done with property in 1954, we have to consider what property is likely to be there in 1954. I suggested some reasons. I may be wrong, but surely they ought to be mentioned.

The Parliamentary Secretary said our Amendment might be an encouragement not to sell. If we do not insert it, will there not be a great encouragement not to buy? What the Government would then be saying to an association financed by a single company, with a special company formed to finance it, would be this, "This has to be disposed of by 1954, and if you hang on long enough you will get it at your own price." It is to avoid that situation that we have moved our Amendment.

That is the real issue. It is not a question of encouraging the Commission to hold on to it. The Disposal Board are there to sell it. What we wish to do is to remove from the mind of those who are buying the prospect that by simply hanging on and waiting until the end of 1954 they can get it at a knock-down price at the public expense. That is the point with which the Government must deal, and nobody has attempted to deal with it. The Government have merely prevaricated.

Mr. Leanox-Boyd

It is a little unfortunate that, at the end of a quite spirited debate, in which one thing among many others has been made absolutely clear, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has failed to grasp that one thing. There is no obligation for the shares to be disposed of by the end of 1954. That has been said at least three times and I will now say it a fourth time. I hope that it will now penetrate his learned intelligence. The only relevance of 1954 to this matter is that at the end of 1954 the 25-mile limit comes to an end. Naturally, the value both of transport units and of companies may be thought likely then to diminish.

Mr. Paget

The right hon. Gentleman says that they need not be disposed of until 1954. Does he agree that if they are not' disposed of they will be retained by the Commission? If he agrees, what are we arguing about?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will come to that. All that I was dealing with was the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, once more repeated, that the property must be disposed of by the end of 1954. The particular relevance of 1954—as other hon. Gentlemen know—is the fact that at the end of that year the 25-mile limit comes to an end. However, there is the duty on the Commission to dispose of their property, whether in transport units or companies, as quickly as is reasonably practicable, and we have every belief that that duty will be punctiliously discharged.

This discussion was started in a curious way by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). After he had discovered which Amendment we were on he made the astonishing statement about the company structure that proprietary control going from one hand in one month to another hand in another month would cause uncertainty. It was precisely because of the advantages of proprietary control that the Commission urged that there should be a company structure. Certainly, Lord Hurcomb and others repeatedly said that the best interests of the workpeople in the Commission's undertaking might be helped in some way by the company structure because they would feel part of a living organism which might pass smoothly into other hands. It might well be thought that in certain cases people might be almost unconscious of the change of ownership, although we very much hope that the company structure will provide a welcome spur.

There is, of course, a real conflict here, and it would be idle to deny it. We are anxious that the property of the Road Haulage Executive should be disposed of. As the noble Lord said, the Opposition do not want to dispose of it. They want to find every possible chance of preventing its rapid disposal. This is the real conflict. We are concerned that the Commission should have five-fourths of the old railway companies' holdings, but apart from this, in their own road haulage sector, their duty to dispose of all their property is absolute. This Amendment would frustrate one of the main purposes of the Bill, and as such, of course, it cannot possibly be accepted.

Three hon. Gentlemen—the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) all asked what would happen if the shares were not sold by the end of 1954. They have had the same answer from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General. The shares could be retained by the Commission. It is their duty to dispose of them as quickly as practicable, but, pending that, they could remain. The companies could be reconstructed. As the Attorney-General said, there is nothing which would prevent in this Clause, or under subsection (11) of this Amendment, the property being disposed of to the Commission who are still under the duty to dispose of it. They could, therefore, dispose of it in another form or another way. If it is suggested, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, that there is no change in a company, which might make one company more marketable than another, then he must be extraordinarily ignorant of capital structure conditions.

Finally, the property could, of course, be disposed of under Clause 4 as units, or under Clause 5 as chattels. I cannot believe that even at this hour there is any inability anywhere to understand this perfectly clear situation.

Mr. M. Stewart

I think the right hon. Gentleman has now made it clear that if these shares are not sold by the end of 1954, the Commission will be allowed to retain them. Am I right about that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Ask questions and I will answer them.

Mr. Stewart

Am I right in supposing that if any of these shares are still unsold by 1954, those which are unsold will remain in the hands of the Commission, though I presume they will still be under a duty to go on trying to sell them? Am I right in that supposition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I cannot answer with the hon. Gentleman standing up, not even at this hour.

The duty of the Commission is to get rid of the Road Haulage Executive properties. If they find difficulty in getting rid of them in the particular shareholding groups in which they have been established, the various machineries I have outlined are open to them, and then, if in the view of the Disposal Board the time has come for the units or such companies as are not sold to be disposed of as chattels, at that moment they will have to dispose of all remaining vehicles as chattels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That has been argued out, and it is an inescapable part of the Bill which has already, as Mr. Speaker said, passed this House.

I am sure it is the hope of everybody that the sooner this business can be properly transacted the better, because it cannot be argued that it is good for the industry that a state of uncertainty should continue indefinitely.

Mr. Donald Kaberry (Leeds, North-West) 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, 234; Noes, 215.

Division No. 146.]	AYES	[12.15 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Odey, G. W.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Harden, J. R. E.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Alport, C. J. M.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Arbuthnot, John	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.(Blackburn, W.)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Osborne, C.
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Hay, John	Partridge, E.
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr.. J M.	Heald, Sir Lionel	Perkins, W. R. D.
Baldwin, A. E.	Heath, Edward	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Banks, Col. C.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Barber, Anthony	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Pilkington, Capt. R A.
Barlow, Sir John	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Pitman, I. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Powell, J. Enoch
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Hirst, Geoffrey	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Profumo, J. D.
Birch, Nigel	Hope, Lord John	Raikes, Sir Victor
Bishop, F. P.	Howard, Hon. Grevile (St. Ives)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Black, C. W.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Redmayne, M.
Bossom, A. C.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hurd, A. R.	Renton, D. L. M.
Braine, B. R.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Roberts, Peter (Hoeley)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hutchison. Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Roper, Sir Harold
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R. C.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Russell, R. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Bullard, D. G.	Kerr, H. W.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E	Lambton, Viscount	Scott, R. Donald
Burden, F. F. A.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Shepherd, William
Campbell, Sir David	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Carr, Robert	Leather, E. H. C.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cary, Sir Robert	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Channon, H.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Snadden, W. McN.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Soames, Capt. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Lindsay, Martin	Spearman, A. C. M
Cole, Norman	Linstead, H. N.	Speir, R. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Stevens, G. P.
Cranborne, Viscount	Longden, Gilbert	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hen. H. F. C.	Low, A. R. W.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Studholme, H. G
Crouch, R. F.	Lucas, P. B (Brentford)	Summers, G. S.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Cuthbert, W. N.	McCallum, Major D.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Deedes, W. F.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Digby, S. Wingfield	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Dormer, P. W.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Doughty, C. J. A.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Turner, H. F. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Turton, R. H
Erroll, F. J.	Markham, Major S. F.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fell, A.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Vane, W. M. F.
Finlay, Graeme	Marples, A. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J, K.
Fisher, Nigel	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Maude, Angus	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Maudling R.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Fort, R.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Foster, John	Mellor, Sir John	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Molson, A. H. E.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Wellwood, W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Nicholls, Harmar	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydan, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnnam)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Gower, H. R.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Wills, G.
Graham, Sir Fergus	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Nugent, G. R. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Nutting, Anthony	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Oakshott, H. D.	Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.
NOES
Adams, Richard	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Pearson, A.
Albu, A. H.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Peart, T. F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hale, Leslie	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Popplewell, E.
Awbery, S. S.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Porter, G.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hamilton, W. W.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Bartley, P.	Hannan, W.	Proctor, W. T.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hargreaves, A.	Rankin, John
Bence, C. R.	Hayman, F. H.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Rhodes, H.
Benson, G.	Herbison, Miss M.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Beswick, F.	Hewitson, Capt. M	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hobson, C. R.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F.	Holman, P.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blenkinsop, A.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, W. R.	Hoy, J. H.	Ross, William
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Royle, C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bowden, H. W.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Short, E. W.
Bowles, F. G.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Janner, B.	Skeffington, A. M.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jeger, George (Goole)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Carmichael, J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Snow, J. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Sorensen, R. W.
Champion, A. J.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Chapman, W. D.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Sparks, J. A.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, T. W (Merioneth)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Coldrick, W.	Keenan, W.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Collick, P. H.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	King, Dr. H. M.	Swingler, S. T.
Cove, W. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Sylvester, G. O.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Lewis, Arthur	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lindgren, G. S.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	MacColl, J. E.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	McGhee, H. G.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	McLeavy, F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thornton, E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Mainwaring, W. H.	Timmons, J.
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Tomney, F.
Delargy, H. J	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N.	Manuel, A. C.	Usborne, H. C.
Donnelly, D. L.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Wallace, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.	Mason, Roy	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Mayhew, C. P.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mellish, R. J	Wells, William (Walsall)
Edelman, M.	Mikardo, Ian	West, D. G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Mitchison, G. R	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Monslow, W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Moody, A. S.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Morley, R.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Wigg, George
Fernyhough, E.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fienburgh, W.	Mort, D. L.	Willey, F. T.
Finch, H. J.	Moyle, A.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mulley, F. W.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Follick, M.	Murray, J. D.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Foot, M. M.	Meal, Harold (Bolsover)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Freeman, John (Watford)	O'Brien, T.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Orbach, M.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	Oswald, T.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gibson, C. W.	Padley, W. E.	Wyatt, W. L.
Gooch, E. G.	Paget, R. T.	Yates, V. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Palmer, A. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grey, C. F.	Pannell, Charles	Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Pargiter, G, A.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 233.

Division No. 147.]	AYES	[12.22 a.m.
Adams, Richard	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Pargiter, G. A.
Albu, A. H.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Pearson, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Peart, T. F.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Hale, Leslie	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Awbery, S. S.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Popplewell, E.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Porter, G.
Bartley, P.	Hamilton, W. W.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hannan, W.	Proctor, W. T.
Bence, C. R.	Hargreaves, A.	Rankin, John
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hayman, F. H.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Benson, G.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)	Rhodes, H.
Beswiok, F.	Herbison, Miss M.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F.	Hobson, C. R.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blenkinsop, A.	Holman, P.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, W. R.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Ross, William
Boardman, H.	Hoy, J. H.	Royle, C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesy)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bowden, H. W.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Short, E. W.
Bowles, F. G.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Skeffington, A. M.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Janner, B.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Carmichael, J.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Snow, J. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Sorensen, R. W.
Champion, A. J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Chapman, W. D.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Sparks, J. A.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Coldrick, W.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Collick, P. H.	Keenan, W.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Swingler, S. T.
Cove, W. G.	King, Dr. H. M.	Sylvester, G. O.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Lewis, Arthur	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lindgren, G. S.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	MacColl, J. E.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	McGhee, H. G.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	McLeavy, F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thornton, E
do Freitas, Geoffrey	Mainwaring, W. H.	Timmons, J.
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Tomney, F.
Delargy, H. J.	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N.	Manuel, A. C.	Usborne, H. C.
Donnelly, D. L.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Wallace, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.	Mason, Roy	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Mayhew, C. P.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mellish, R. J.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Edelman, M.	Mikardo, Ian	West, D. G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Mitchison, G. R.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Monslow, W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Moody, A. S.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Morley, R.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Morris, Perey (Swansea, W.)	Wigs, George
Ferny hough, E.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fienburgh, W.	Mort, D. L.	Willey, F. T.
Finch, H. J.	Moyle, A.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mulley, F. W.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Follick, M.	Murray, J. D.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Foot, M. M.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Freeman, John (Watford)	O'Brien, T.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Orbach, M.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Oswald, T.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Gibson, C. W.	Padley, W. E.	Wyatt, W. L.
Gooch, E. G.	Paget, R. T.	Yates, V. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Palmer, A. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grey, C. F.	Pannell, Charles	Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Baldwin, A. E.	Black, C. W.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Banks, Col. C.	Bossom, A. C.
Alport, C. J. M.	Barber, Anthony	Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Barlow, Sir John	Boyle, Sir Edward
Arbuthnot, John	Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Braine, B. R.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Asshaton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.	Birch, Nigel	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Bishop, F. P.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Brooman-White, R. C.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hudson, W. R- A. (Hull, N.)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bullard, D. G.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Pitman, I. J.
Bullus, Whig Commander E. E.	Hurd, A. R.	Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Campbell, Sir David	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Profumo, J. D.
Carr, Robert	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Raikes, Sir Victor
Cary, Sir Robert	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Channon, H.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Redmayne, M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Kerr, H. W.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Cora, Norman	Lambton, Viscount	Renton, D. L. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cranborne, Viscount	Leather, E. H. C.	Roper, Sir Harold
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Russell, R. S.
Crouch, R. F.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lindsay, Martin	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdala)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Linstead, H. N.	Scott, R. Donald
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Deedes, W. F.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Shepherd, William
Digby, S. Wingfield	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Longden, Gilbert	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Low, A. R. W.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Donner, P. W.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Snadden, W. McN.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Soames, Capt. C.
Drayson, G. B.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Spearman, A. C. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	McCalium, Major D.	Speir, R. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Erroll, F. J.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Fell, A.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Stevens, G. P.
Finlay, Graeme	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Fisher, Nigel	Maclean, Fitzroy	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Studholme, H. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Summers, G. S.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fort, R.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Foster, John	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Markham. Major S. F.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Marples, A. E.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Cough, C. F. H.	Maude, Angus	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.
Gower, H. R.	Maudling, R.	Tilney, John
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Turner, H. F. L.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mellor, Sir John	Turton, R. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Molson, A. H. E.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hall, John (Wyoombe)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Vane, W. M. F.
Harden, J. R. E.	Nabarro, G. O. N.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Nicholls, Harmar	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hay John	Nutting, Anthony	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Heald Sir Lionel	Oakshott, H. D.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Heath, Edward	Odey, G. W.	Wellwood, W.
Higgs J. M. C.	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Wills, G.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Holland-Martin C. J.	Osborne, C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Partridge, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hope, Lord John	Perkins, W. R. D.	Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Crookshank

I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."

We have not made such progress by now as we had hoped, or, indeed, as might have been thought reasonable. We thought that we should have been able to get today the big Lords Amend- ment—only Amendments to which we have been discussing—that is to say, the new Clause. In point of fact, all that we have had is five Amendments to one Lords Amendment. We have had more than a normal Parliamentary day on them. When one reflects on what is frequently done on a Parliamentary day, how the Second Reading of an important Bill is frequently taken in one day, how great debates on Imperial or foreign or colonial affairs are taken in one Parliamentary day, it is somewhat of a reflection that today we have dealt with only five Amendments to one Lords Amendment. But the Government realise, as I expect does almost everybody now in the Chamber that we sat very late last night and I think that we must take that into consideration. That is why I have moved this Motion.

The House will remember that, on Thursday last, I announced the National Insurance Bill Second Reading for tomorrow. Fortunately, as far as I know, it is regarded as a non-contentious Measure—one more advance in our social services. It may be convenient if I now announce that these Lords Amendments will be put down as first Order tomorrow, and we shall hope to make good progress, but we will leave the National Insurance Bill, which is universally regarded as desirable, as the second Order.

Mr. H. Morrison

This is an attempt at the emergence of the strong man again. Once before something like this happened, owing to incompetence or blundering on the part of the Government in regard to business, and they were revenged by altering the business for the next day. Now, the House is placed in this position on a Bill that is not really urgent. I have said before that, if the Government get it by the end of the Session, they will have done very well. If they get the other one as well, they will have done better. There is no hurry about this Bill; in fact, it would be a good thing if it was never passed at all.

As a matter of fact, I am told by my hon. Friends, who have just done some rapid counting, that these figures of the Amendments that have been considered are not accurate. Some were taken together, and the total number of Amendments. I am told, is about 10. But let the House remember what this Clause is. Consider the size of the Clause. It runs into pages, it is bigger than quite a number of Bills, and it raises quite a lot of important issues of public policy. Moreover, not only is it the case that it raises vitally important issues of public policy, but we have to spend time —we are driven to spend time—in order to get clear explanations of what the Clause means and what the effect of the Amendments would be. Consequently, a lot of the time that has been spent has been lost owing to the ineptitude of the Government themselves.

I say again that there is and has been no question, on this Bill or on the Lords Amendments, of the Opposition obstructing or being silly, and I say that in absolute good faith and earnestness. All we have been doing is our public duty, and, whatever the Leader of the House may do, however he may be egged on by the Prime Minister—he is looking not quite sure whether to look cross or cheeky; I am not sure which it is—it is no good the Leader of the House thinking that, by playing about with the business of the House, which is what he is doing at the moment, he is thereby going to divert the Opposition from discharging their public duty by proper examination of this Bill.

That is all we are doing in our Amendments to their Lordships Amendments and in the speeches made from this side of the House; and, by the way, there has been a certain number from the other side. It is true that there are signs of fatigue today on the part of hon. Members, but some made their contributions, as it is their right and duty to do. Merely because we have done this and carried out our public duty by examining these Lords Amendments and making proposals for Amendments to them, the Leader of the House says, "I will punish you, and give you business tomorrow that you did not anticipate; I will upset the arrangements you have made for the day"— and all because we are doing our duty.

As reported to me by my hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the Government Chief Whip said this—and it was a foolish comment to make—as reported in the "Beckenham Journal," an influential local newspaper in his constituency, which is a neighbouring one to mine. I have often driven through it and thought of the Chief Whip as I went through. I am bound to say, having looked at considerable parts of his constituency, that I can understand what happens and how it is that he gets returned to Parliament. Nevertheless, the time marches on and some day he will be moved.

On 27th March, the "Beckenham Journal" quoted the Government Chief Whip. It is a quotation from a Whip who is whining that the Opposition are doing their job with too great energy. It reads: The Socialists say they will do that— that is, reverse previous legislation —with iron and steel and transport, but, personally, I very much doubt if they will, particularly after the quietness with which they have allowed these Bills to go through. I never knew what was the origin of the tradition of silence among Whips, but I begin to suspect it when the Chief Whip says things of that sort. The chickens are beginning to come home to roost. It is the beginning of the shape of things to come. Conservatives are not good at that, because they want to make things go backwards or stand still.

As a mere method of spite they are now saying to themselves, "No doubt Members of the Labour Party have made certain arrangements on the assumption that tomorrow there will be the National Insurance Bill which will finish by 10 p.m., and it is a day upon which various arrangements can be made." I imagine it is a day, too, upon which various arrangements among Conservatives have been made. But the Government are merely being obstinate and sticky, and saying, "We have not got these Lords Amendments as quickly as we thought, so we are going to stick it, stick it, and stick it until we get them through." There is nothing clever or virtuous about that. I say that a Government which gratuitously, at 12.30 a.m., tells the House that on this day's Sitting they are going to turn the proceedings inside out and take totally different business merely to be spiteful is a childish Government.

What will the Government do? Is it their intention to go right through to tomorrow night? If they do, we shall be there. Is it their intention to go right through Private Members' time on Friday and take it away from Private Members of the House? We ought to know. Are they going through until 4 p.m. on Friday? If so, are they sure they will get all the Lords Amendments? In each case, the Government has merely inconvenienced hon. Members on both sides of the House later today and has possibly stolen Private Members' time on Friday which is sacred to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was taken during the war."] Yes, Private Members' time was taken during the war, and, I admit, held back during part of the time of the Labour Government, but it was restored by the Labour Government. Are the Government intending to take it away?

12.45 a.m.

This is a petty thing to do. It is mere vindictiveness. The Government have not got the Lords Amendments settled, but they might have known they would not have got them settled. Why? We had a guillotined Bill. The Guillotine was thrown at us without any consultation. We were treated with contempt. It was an unfair Guillotine. The consequence of the Guillotine is that the Lords Amendments are heavy and important and responsible. It was inevitable that when they came to us they would take time, and they have, simply because we have done our public duty. I protest very strongly against this action, which, as I say, is spiteful, vindictive and petty.

After consultation with our Chief Whip I think it right to inform the House of what indeed the House scarcely needs informing about. It is obvious that the pairs which were made on the basis of a very different type of business for tomorrow cannot operate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] To be on the safe side, in case of eventualities, they cannot be adhered to on Friday either. I thought it courteous and right to inform the House of the decision of our Whips' Department. I protest against this action of the Government, spiteful and petty as it is, and I hope that the Government may yet live to regret it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)

The right hon. Gentleman is a master of the art of trying to have it all ways at once. I must confess to the House that I have not sat through all these debates. I have a lot of other things to attend to. However, I have very carefully followed the course of this important Bill, and I am bound to say that I understood, before the Recess, before the lamentable events which occurred a little while ago, that the course of business which would have led to the conclusion of this Bill and of the Lords Amendments was practically accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am only saying what I understood was the case.

Mr. H. Morrison rose—

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman has just been speaking. I must be allowed to say what I thought was the general impression on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All this shouting now has no resemblance to the quiescence—the quietude, I think was the word—which was shown by the Opposition when the business was laid out and this matter was thought to be settled. That is one chapter of the story.

Then an interlude occurred. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a speech made by the Chief Whip in his constituency. We all have constituencies. He made a speech in which he said how quietly this great Transport Bill had gone through. That, I think, was an obvious comment and a general conclusion. I understand from various sources that hon. Members opposite and the leaders of the party, whoever they may be and whichever seem to show the winning colours at any particular part of the race, received very strong reproaches from their constituents, "Why are you not fighting this Tory Bill better?" The result has been that they have lashed up their fury, their pretended fury—all false, sham [Interruption]—all rubbish [Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite cannot do anything but yell. Let them have a really good yell if they want one.

All I am saying is that the Leaders of the Socialist Party have been forced by the pressure of their constituents to think again and to buck up in opposing the Transport Bill; and that is what we are witnessing now and what we are undergoing now. We are not afraid. We have every intention of carrying this Measure, although we have been subjected, in my opinion, to an altogether dishonest and even disgraceful bit of obstruction over the Lords Amendments.

We have every intention of carrying this Bill through. It was thought that it would be for the convenience of the House, having had to sit so late last night, if hon. Members could disperse early tonight. I was told that it made a difference to many hon. Members opposite in catching their trains. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have all gone."] That was one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the Adjournment. Under great provocation, in face of many insults, we try to consider with good feeling the reasonable convenience of the House. And what is the result? The result is this speech of the right hon. Gentleman, this exhibition, founded on humbug, ending as it did—[Interruption]—I do not mind being shouted down. Hon. Members opposite can yell themselves hoarse and get their friends to shout much louder, too—and ending as it did, in futility.

The necessary arrangements must be made in the Government business. I gather that the Opposition repudiate all the honourable contracts they have entered into about pairs—although three Ministers have gone to Paris on public duty, on quite definite assurances. We are not in the least disheartened or discouraged by this conduct. It is only hon. Members opposite who suffer in public reputation.

I will make it perfectly plain that as far as the Government are concerned we have every intention of carrying this Bill into law, and dealing with the Lords Amendments before this week is out. [Interruption.] I have rarely seen an Opposition making such a violent and insincere obstruction and pretence against the good feeling of the House as this performance has presented, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman who, even at this last moment, presented himself as a man having a grievance, that we shall show him before the week is out on which side the grievance lies.

Mr. Callaghan

I do not know what was the purpose of the Prime Minister's intervention, except perhaps to dispirit his already dispirited followers. Many of them will find no particular joy in having to sit on Thursday and Friday, perhaps even then not to see the work concluded. The Prime Minister will do well to examine the work that lies before us before making a statement that in any case the Government intends to finish the Lords Amendments by Friday night.

The Prime Minister

I said by the end of this week.

Mr. Callaghan

A Saturday Sitting will be an extremely novel experience for a great many of us. I will not say that it will be viewed with apprehension, because I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be with us or not, but if he is, whatever quiet features distinguish the proceedings he can be calculated to raise the temperature any time he gets to his feet. I am sure we would not have had a quiet time if he had been present during our debates.

The Prime Minister does not make the noise; he is the catalyst. He is the man who sets the whole thing off. He is the match to the tinder, and he knows his accomplishment. This is very poor thanks for the constructive efforts made by the Opposition throughout the whole of the Transport Bill, to which the Minister paid tribute during the Third Reading, saying that we had eschewed obstruction in order to try, in the limited time given to us, to put forward Amendments which were constructive and would improve the Bill.

I would remind the Prime Minister that the Guillotine was imposed on this Bill, the first Measure brought in by this Government, without any consultation with the Opposition, and after indications from us that we had no intention of repeating the miserable performances of the Conservative Party when in opposition on the Gas Bill and similar Measures brought in during the life-time of the Labour Government. The Prime Minister says that honourable contracts in relation to pairs were repudiated. It is my information that pairs were offered to Ministers going to Paris. If that is dispute, then I have no doubt—

The Prime Minister

Does that offer hold or not?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Callaghan

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is still prepared to carry out the pairs originally arranged for on the basis agreed.

The Prime Minister

What do you mean by that?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I understand that names have been offered to the Patronage Secretary—and those names have, I think, been accepted as live pairs—for the Ministers who have gone to Paris. I do not know to what the Prime Minister was referring when he said that we had broken our contract.

The Prime Minister

I was referring to this one special point.

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

Apologise.

The Prime Minister

On the contrary, but I am very glad to know that the pairs arranged for the three Ministers who have gone to Paris will be respected in a bona fide manner. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has not referred at all to the other pairs.

Mr. Callaghan

I was not aware, when the Prime Minister referred to the repudiation of honourable contracts, that he was referring to other instances. If he is referring to the general breaking of pairs, then, clearly, he must hold the Leader of the House responsible for altering the business for to-morrow. If that is not a repudiation of a contract entered into by the Leader of the House concerning the business of the House, I do not know what is. That is where the initiative lies.

No undertaking was given or any understanding entered into with anybody on the Government side about the consideration of these Lords Amendments. I do not know whether the Prime Minister intended to infer that there had been some such arrangements, but, if he did, let me repudiate it at once. We will continue to examine this Bill with the best means at our disposal, and continue to apply our minds to these Lords Amendments.

I would ask the Prime Minister, in order to expedite the business, to try to get the Attorney-General, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to agree on their interpretation of the Lords Amendments so that we do not have to spend too much time in clearing up the confusion that has existed all day on the Government Front Bench. We shall go on doing our duty, and we hope that the Prime Minister will be here to do his.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I have no wish to exacerbate the feelings which have already been manifested, but I want to make a suggestion. It is that, instead of discussing the Transport Bill again tomorrow and on Friday—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Saturday and Sunday."]—we should postpone further discussion on it until after the Whitsun Recess.

We shall shortly be adjourning for the Whitsun Recess, and I understand that immediately after we return the House will again adjourn for a day or so in order that hon. Members may attend the Naval Review. I suggest that further discussion of this Bill should be left to those of us who will not be attending the Naval Review, and I can assure the Prime Minister that in the safe hands of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself it will not come to any harm.

I want to suggest that to keep us here probably tomorrow night as we were last night and then have a long Recess at Whitsun and a short Recess again for the Naval Review is a shocking thing. I would much rather hon. Members, on 15th and 16th June, spent their time discussing this Bill than going to Spithead at the expense of the taxpayers when they are always groaning and moaning about keeping down Government expenditure. I

suggest that those two days, which are to be spent in the Channel area, would be better devoted to this Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to accede to our request.

Mr. H. Morrison

In the circumstances and to register our protest we shall divide the House on this Motion. This is not because we wish the Sitting to continue, but because we must register our protest against conduct which we consider inimical to the good name and good temper of the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 205.

Division No. 148.]	AYES	[1.6 a.m.
Aitken, W.T.	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Alport, C. J. M.	Erroll, F. J.	Leather, E. H. C.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Fell, A.	Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.
Arbuthnot, John	Finlay, Graeme	Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Fisher, Nigel	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lindsay, Martin
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Linstead, H. N.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Ford, Mrs. Patricia	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Baldwin, A. E.	Fort, R.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Banks, Col. C.	Foster, John	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Barber, Anthony	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Barlow, Sir John	Galbrairth, T. G. O. (Hillhead)	Low, A. R. W.
Beamish, Major Tufton	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Gough, C. F. H.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Birch, Nigel	Cower, H. R.	McCallum, Major D.
Bishop, F. P.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Black, C. W.	Grdley, Sir Arnold	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Bossom, A. C.	Grimond, J.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Boyle, Sir Edward	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Maclean, Fitzroy
Braine, B. R.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Harden, J. R. E.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maitland, Comdr. 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)	Markham, Major S. F.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Marlowe. A. A. H.
Bullard, D. G.	Hay, John	Marples, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Heald, Sir Lionel	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Burden, F. F. A.	Heath, Edward	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 (Mitcham)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Cary, Sir Robert	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Mellor, Sir John
Channon, H.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Molson, A. H. E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Cole, Norman	Hope, Lord John	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Nutting, Anthony
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hurd, A. R.	Odey, G. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)	O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Crouch, R. F.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Deedes, W. F.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Osborne, C.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Partridge, E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Kaberry, D.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Donner, P. W.	Lambton, Viscount	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Drayson, G. B.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Pitman, I. J.	Snadden, W. McN.	Turton, R. H.
Powell, J. Enoch	Soames, Capt. C.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Pries, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Spearman, A. C. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Speir, R. M.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Profumo, J. D.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Vosper, D. F.
Raikes, Sir Victor	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Redmayne, M.	Stevens, G. P.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Walker-Smith, O. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Renton, D. L. M.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Summers, G. S.	Water-house, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Roper, Sir Harold	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)	Wellwood, W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Russell, R. S.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Scott, R. Donald	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Wills, G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Shepherd, William	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Tilney, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Touche, Sir Gordon	Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	Turner, H. F. L.
NOES
Adams, Richard	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Albu, A. H.	Freeman, John (Watford)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Mort, D. L.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Mulley, F. W.
Awbery, S. S.	Gibson, C. W.	Murray, J. D.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Gooch, E. G.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Bartley, P.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	O'Brien, T.
Bence, C. R.	Grey, C. F.	Orbach, M.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Oswald, T.
Benson, G.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Padley, W. E.
Beswick, F.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Paget, R. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Blackburn, F.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Blenkinsop, A.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Palmer, A. M. F.
Blyton, W. R.	Hamilton, W. W.	Pargiter, G. A.
Boardman, H.	Hannan, W.	Pearson, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hayman, F. H.	Peart, T. F.
Bowden, H. W.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bowles, F. G.	Herbison, Miss M.	Popplewell, E.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Porter, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hobson, C. R.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Holman, P.	Proctor, W. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Rankin, John
Callaghan, L. J.	Hoy, J. H.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Carmichael, J.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Rhodes, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Champion, A. J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chapman, W. O.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Coldrick, W.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Collick, P. H.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Ross, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cove, W. G.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Short, E. W.
Crosland, C. A. R.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Skeffington, A. M.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Keenan, W.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	King, Dr. H. M.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Deer, G.	Lewis, Arthur	Snow, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.	Lindgren, G. S.	Sorensen, R. W.
Dodds, N. N.	MacColl, J. E.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Donnelly, D. L.	McGhee, H. G.	Sparks, J. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edelman, M.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Swingler, G. T.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mason, Roy	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mayhew, C. P.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fernyhough, E.	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Fienburgh, W.	Mikardo, Ian	Thomson. George (Dundee, E.)
Finch, H. J.	Mitchison, G. R.	Thornton, E. (Farnworth)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Monslow, W.	Timmons, J.
Follick, M.	Moody, A. S.	Tomney, F.
Foot, M. M.	Marley, R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Usborne, H. C.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Wallace, H. W	Wigg, George	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M, (Bradford,S)	Wilcock, Group Capt. C A. B.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)	Wilkins, W. A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)	Wyatt, W. L.
Wast, D. G.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)	Yates, V, F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Wheeldon, W. E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Royle and Mr. John Taylor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments to be further considered this day.