HC Deb 24 February 1953 vol 511 cc1997-2015

  1. (1) Section seven of this Act shall not apply to any products of an activity included in paragraph 4 or paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to this Act unless the Board have made a report to the Minister under the following provisions of this section and the Minister has made an order under those provisions directing that the said section seven is to apply to those products.
  2. (2) If the Board consider, as respects any class of products of any such activity,
    1. (a) that at least one-third by weight of the total annual output in Great Britain of products of that class is being produced by any one person, or by two or more persons, being interconnected bodies corporate within the meaning of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948; or
    2. (b) that the producers of at least one-third by weight of the total annual output in Great Britain of products of that class whether voluntarily or not, and whether by agreement or arrangement or not, so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition in connection with the supply of those products.
  3. (3) If the producers on whom a notice is served under the last preceding subsection fail to satisfy the Board of the matters aforesaid in accordance with the notice, and the Board make a report to that effect to the Minister, the Minister may, after consultation with such representative organisations as he considers appropriate, by order direct that section seven of this Act shall apply to the class of products to which the notice related.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sandys

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Clause seeks to prescribe a special procedure for the price control of castings and forgings, which, we feel, fall into a different category from the iron and steel products at the heavy end of the industry. There are so many firms in this section of the industry—foundries and forges—and it is so relatively easy for newcomers to enter it, as compared with the great financial cost involved in entering the heavy end of the industry, that we feel that normally it is reasonable to rely upon competition to assure to the consumers protection against excessive prices.

In our view, almost the only circumstances in which the Board's intervention might be necessary to control prices of forgings and castings, is where a large part of the output of a certain product is in the hands of one firm or of a group of firms between whom there is some price ring arrangement. The Clause provides that in such circumstances the Board will be able to call upon the firms concerned to satisfy the Board within a period of three months that their prices are reasonable, or, alternatively, that those firms shall bring down their prices to a level which the Board are prepared to accept as being reasonable.

If, at the end of the three months, the Board report to the Minister that they are not satisfied that the prices of particular products in the foundry and forging industries are reasonable, the Minister, if he accepts the view of the Board, may issue an order authorising them to fix maximum prices in respect of the products concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. Roberts) has put down three Amendments, all of which, I understand, are designed to extend the application of this Clause to cover special steels for which the City of Sheffield is famous. We fully recognise the importance of these high quality special steels for tool making and other purposes. In practice, it is exceedingly difficult to fix common prices for products whose value varies according to the different processes by which they are made. These special steels are made in comparatively small quantities by many firms. We therefore accept the view that special steels are to some extent in a similar position to castings and forgings in relation to price control and have sympathy with the proposal of my hon. Friend that special steels should be included within the scope of this Clause. However, before we can include a product within the scope of a Clause we first have to define what that product is.

As I understand, no satisfactory definition of a special steel has yet been found. We all know what we mean but it has not been found possible to set down on paper a satisfactory definition in legal form. The definition my hon. Friend used in his Amendment to Clause 31, which was not called, is the best definition that has so far been produced. That Amendment was, in page 26, line 11, at the end, to insert: special steel,' means either those steels containing not less than point six five per cent. carbon and made in electric arc higher frequency or crucible furnaces and used solely for the production of hand and machine cutting and forming tools, or those steels made in electric arc higher frequency or crucible furnaces and containing combinations of tungsten chrome vanadium molybdenum cobalt and having a total of these alloys of not less than one per cent. and not being stainless or heat-resisting, and used solely for the production of hand and machine cutting and forming tools. It contains, however, a number of serious defects. In the first place, it would not cover steels made in open hearth furnaces, of which there are a considerable number. In the second place, it would not cover tool steels containing less than the specified 0.65 per cent. of carbon. Thirdly, the definition would not cover special steels which were not solely used for tool making. We feel that these shortcomings are so serious as to make it impossible for us to accept it. If, however, a satisfactory definition should be devised, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am quite prepared to consider including special steels within the scope of this new Clause and, with that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendments.

Mr. P. Roberts

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I am sure that the Committee will realise the particular position held by special steels, especially in Sheffield, and the fact that they are made up very much by different concoctions and different ingredients chosen by individual firms. I am equally concerned that those interested in this matter should read what the Minister has said. I appreciate the difficulty of finding a proper definition and I also appreciate the remarks my right hon. Friend has made about the definition I put down. In view of the assurance he has given, that he will look at any other definition between now and Report stage, I do not propose to move the Amendments in my name.

It may be that if a definition can be found it can be considered on Report. If a definition cannot be found, I am fortified by the thought that very likely the Board will not be able to find a definition either and, therefore, may not find it easy to discover a definition by which prices will be referred back to the Board. I appreciate the way in which the Minister has dealt with this serious problem. Those who are interested in the matter, having now heard what he has to say, will be able to try to find a solution. If we cannot find a solution, I am satisfied that we shall be willing to accept the decision of the Board. We are satisfied that the Board will deal with this in a reasonable and practical manner.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

We do not disagree with the view expressed by the Minister. It is exceedingly difficult to fix maximum prices for the output of foundries or forgings. Special steels do not come under that particular category of iron and steeel products which can easily be controlled by maximum prices.

We do not quarrel with the Minister in making this concession, no doubt to complaints which were made by the interests concerned—complaints quite properly made and I do not complain about them. I would only point out that the fact that the Minister in moving the new Clause shows that he is doing something quite paradoxical. It means that he does not trust the common sense and intelligence of the Board. The Board is to consist of people with the greatest intelligence, knowledge and understanding, but they are not bound to control all or any prices. They are given permissive powers to control prices of such products as they think correct to control. If the Board are to be understanding and intelligent one would expect that of their own volition they would not want to fix maximum prices of products where the fixing of maximum prices is undesirable.

What is happening is that the Minister is doing the work of the Board. I do not know whether he mistrusts the Board or is not sure that the people he is to choose will be wise and balanced in these matters. I can guess what the reason is.

(1) The Board may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer to furnish to the Board information and forecasts with respect to his output and stocks of, and capacity to produce, any iron and steel products, his consumption and stocks of, and arrangements for procuring, raw materials or fuel for producing any such products, or any other matters relating to the production of any such products but not relating directly to the costs of production, being information and forecasts reasonably required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act.
(2) The Board or the Minister may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer to furnish to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under section seven of this Act or, as the case may be, by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under section eight of this Act, and the notice may require any such information to be certified as correct by the auditors of the undertaking.
(3) The Board may by notice in writing require any person engaged in the importation into Great Britain, as a common service for iron and steel producers or any group thereof, of raw materials for use by those producers, to furnish to the Board information relating to such importation as aforesaid.
(4) It shall be the duty of every person on whom a notice is served under this section to comply with the notice and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds; and, if any default in respect of which any person is convicted under this subsection is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence punishable as aforesaid.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sandys

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause is designed to replace Clause 13, which was deleted at an earlier stage. Like the original Clause 13, it is intended—I emphasise this—to assure to the Board all the information which they will need to discharge their functions and duties. On the other hand—this is the difference between this Clause and the original Clause 13—it is drawn in such a way as will, we hope, discourage the Board from calling for unnecessary information and from worrying the industry needlessly with requests for returns and The Minister has been anxious to accept the views of his industrialist friends who have put pressure on him. They have told him, "We fear that this Board may do something foolish and fix maximum prices where they ought not to fix them." The Minister has said, "I will put a new Clause in the Bill which will stop them doing that." We do not blame him, but I cannot help pointing out that in doing this the Minister is expressing distrust of the Board which he is to appoint. Having said that, we do not propose to oppose the new Clause.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

detailed costings information. With this sole object we have, in this new Clause, defined much more precisely than in the original version the types of information which the Board may need and the circumstances in which they may call for that information from particular sections of the industry.

Broadly, we have divided the information which the Board may require into three classes—production statistics, costs of production and importation of raw materials. Those are the three classes of information which the Board are likely to require in connection with their various duties and functions under the Bill. In subsection (1) all producers who come within the scope of the supervision of the Board will be required, if asked by the Board to do so, to provide information or forecasts about their capacity, output, materials and stocks. This information is already regularly provided by the industry to the Government.

8.0 p.m.

In subsection (2) it is provided that the Board or the Minister may call upon the iron and steel companies to provide information about the production costs of those products covered by the price control powers of the Board not referred to in subsection (1). I am glad the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) recognises the justice of applying a slightly different procedure to the price control arrangements in respect of castings and forgings as compared with the rest of the industry.

Dividing the information obtainable under the two subsections will ensure that small firms—I am thinking particularly of foundries employing only a small number of men in a backyard—will not be hampered by bureaucratic officials, or asked to make extensive and frequent detailed costing reports. When any casting or forging is brought within the scope of Clause 7 of the Bill, by the procedure defined earlier, a firm producing them will be in the same position as producers in any other part of the industry.

In addition, we have introduced a new provision. We have authorised the Board to require information about costs to be certified by auditors, should they so wish. Subsection (3) ensures that the Board will be able to obtain the information they require about the importation of raw materials from such organisations as B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.C.(Ore) importing raw materials as a common service for the industry.

Subsection (4) provides penalties for failure to provide the Board or the Minister with information to which they are entitled. The penalties have deliberately been made the same as those set out in the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. We feel that this type of information will be called for under much the same circumstances as those envisaged in that Act.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, to leave out, "but not relating directly to," and to insert "including."

In moving this Amendment, I propose to refer also to the next Amendment to the proposed Clause appearing on the Order Paper in my name, in line 11, at the end, to insert: duty under section three of this Act or of their. In one respect there is an improvement in this new Clause compared with the original Clause 13. This Clause enables the Board to obtain information from B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.C.(Ore), two very important agencies. Obviously, if the Board are to do their duty and ensure that the industry gets the raw materials required from abroad, they must have that information.

Under subsection (1) of this new Clause, the Board are able to obtain a variety of information from all producers, but there is one important exception which is stated categorically. They may not get any information relating directly to the cost of production. Although my legal friends tell me the wording is not clear, as subsections (1) and (2) conflict, I take it that under subsection (2), if the Board require any information about the cost of production in order to fix maximum prices, they can obtain it. I assume that to be the correct reading of this new Clause, although I have been advised that, in view of the denial of that information under subsection (1), it is not absolutely clear whether it can be demanded under subsection (2). Perhaps that point can be looked at, and if there is any doubt it may be cleared up.

I am concerned about the ban on the Board seeking essential information which I maintain they must have if they are to carry out their duties properly. There are two matters in which the powers of the Board to obtain information are insufficient. We dealt previously with the power to look at the books of companies on all matters affecting the duties of the Board and the power to inspect works. We say that in this Clause the Board should be given power to obtain information about the cost of production in the various units.

After all, under Clause 3 of the Bill the Board are entrusted with the duty of supervising the industry, with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply … of iron and steel products. I assume that means that the Board have some responsibility for the efficiency of the industry, because there can be no other meaning in those words. The Board, therefore, must interest themselves substantially in promoting efficient production in the industry, and in order to do so they must know the production costs of the various units in the industry. That is a first essential. Without it the Board would be completely blind.

Here we are told that that is the one thing the Board may not ask about. Why is it excluded? The Minister is behaving as though the Board will upset the industry by rushing men all over the place to inspect plant, and by seeking information which they do not want, and which no one would conceivably want. It is only on that assumption that this restriction on the Board makes any sense at all.

We accept the argument put forward by the Minister when we were discussing the constitution of the Board that he is going to get the best and most knowledgeable and responsible people he can find and entrust them with the important task of looking after this industry, promoting its efficiency, guarding the public interest and so on.

If that is so, then the Board will not do anything idiotic and demand from all the companies an immense number of production figures which are unnecessary. If the Board want to be stupid and idiotic, they can already demand a whole lot of unnecessary information under subsection (1) of the new Clause. But one must assume that they are going to try to carry out the responsibilities placed upon them by Parliament. and if they are to do that they must have access to the production costs of the various units in the industry.

That, however, is deliberately denied to the Board in this new Clause, and we seek to remedy that deficiency. Why is the Minister restricting the Board in this way? They were not restricted under the original Clause 13, which gave them power to ask such questions when they thought necessary. But that power is now taken away from them, and one is driven to the conclusion that certain sections of the industry so mistrust the Board and any form of public supervision that they are determined to make that supervision as harmless and as useless as possible. They have succeeded to some extent by inducing the Minister to take away from the Board certain essential powers, one of them the power to get this essential information about production costs.

We say that is wholly wrong. We want the Board to have all the information necessary to carry out their duties properly, and that is why we have put down this Amendment. We say, moreover, that the Board shall be entitled to get any information they require in order to carry out their duties under the Bill, which duties are set out very clearly in Clause 3. I very much hope that in view of the arguments I have advanced the Minister will tell us that he will either accept the Amendments as they stand or will consider the matter between now and the Report stage so that we may have a further opportunity of considering it then. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not impressed by my arguments because he thinks I am prejudiced. But I have advanced arguments to show that this is not purely a political matter, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the views I have expressed are held very strongly by my colleagues. In these circumstances, I trust that he will accept the principle which I have put to the Committee.

Mr. Sandys

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I accept the principle of his Amendments. I am not quite sure what he means, because the principle is, of course, one of the things on which I do not think there is any disagreement. As he says, it is not a political point. The principle is that the Board must have all the information they need in order effectively to carry out the duties entrusted to them by Parliament. That must be the overriding consideration in drawing up this Clause. Subject to that, we consider it desirable to restrict the Board's right to ask for information to such things as are strictly necessary for the discharge of their duties.

The right hon. Gentleman very fairly said that we must rely on the Board being wise and sensible and on their not asking for information which they do not need. Of course, had we adopted that point of view, which is very sound, and one to which I would like to have adhered from the start, we would not have accepted quite a number of Amendments proposed by the party opposite. My approach towards the Amendments has been throughout that, if there is genuine doubt and anxiety, whether among hon. Members opposite or in the industry outside, we should, as far as practicable and without interfering with the purpose of the Bill, insert into it words which will clarify our intentions and allay any doubts there may be.

8.15 p.m.

I do not conceal the fact that there has been a considerable amount of anxiety in the industry about the possibility of the Board using their rather sweeping powers to call for information—powers which were provided in the original Clause 13—to burden the industry with a mass of bureaucratic returns and forms which would be irksome and tiresome. particularly for the small foundries and forges, many of which have not the clerical organisation to deal with such things.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent. South)

Part of that was political.

Mr. Sandys

I think that is a very unfair remark for the hon. Member to make. The anxieties which have been expressed were not political, but were genuinely put forward.

Mr. Smith

I do not mean on your part; I mean with regard to the opposition outside.

Mr. Sandys

I do not know about the opposition; the hon. Member knows more about that.

The question is not really whether it is right to restrict the Board's unlimited power to call for information. It is whether the scope of this Clause will be sufficient to provide the Board with the information they need. If it is, then I feel we have met the case and that there can be no advantage, and may, indeed, be some disadvantage, in giving the Board the right to call for information which they would not require.

The particular question which the right hon. Gentleman raises is that of the Board's right to obtain information about production costs. As he pointed out, the Board can under subsection (2) obtain information about production costs, and I agree that it is linked to Clause 7 which sets out the price-fixing powers. The question is whether, in fact, that will prevent the Board from obtaining the information which they genuinely require for carrying out their duties. I do not believe that it will.

I explained why we had separated the powers to call for information, and I think the right hon. Gentleman had some sympathy with the reasons I adduced. The question is whether the Board will be unable to obtain the information they require about costs except strictly in relation to price fixing. In what circumstances will the Board want to know about production costs? In the main, of course, it will be in connection with price-fixing, but they may also require it in connection with their general supervision over the efficiency of the industry; I think that was the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

I submit that the initial approach of the Board to production costs, will be to look at the prices charged by the industry and to form an opinion as to whether, compared with prices in other countries, the industry appears to be producing efficiently. If the prices are reasonable they are a fair indication of the efficiency of the industry. If the margin of profit is not excessive, quite clearly the prices directly reflect the cost of production. If, on the other hand, the Board suspect that prices are unreasonably high there is a prima facie case for them to consider whether they should fix maximum prices if they have not already done so in respect of these particular products. They can then, straight away, call for production costs under subsection (2). I suggest, therefore, that, in practice, the Board will be able to obtain all the information they require for the discharge of their duties.

I will certainly look into the legal point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall. I have not had time to consult Parliamentary counsel about it and it had not occurred to me that subsection (2) did not stand on its own feet.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The first case made out by the Minister was very much stronger than the one to which we have just listened. In trying to explain the rather weak powers which the Board have in these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has put forward suggestions about measuring efficiency which would not be accepted by any industrial efficiency expert anywhere in the country. It is absolutely impossible to measure industrial efficiency without making a detailed examination of the costs of production.

It is no use taking the final price charged to the consumer as a basis, because all sorts of things go into the final price which have no relation at all to production costs. Prices might be fixed by a really efficient producer who realised that his competitors were not efficient and he would be making excessive profits which might limit his efficiency.

Clause 3 says of the functions of the Board that It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry, with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products,…. In my view it is quite impossible to carry out those duties unless there is the fullest investigation, not necessarily into all the details of all the 2,000-odd companies which will be taken over, but into the main lines of production of the industry, into representative firms and into their costs of production and other relevant matters, year in and year out, while the work of the Board goes on.

As the Minister himself has said, the Board must have all the information that they need to carry out the duties laid down by Parliament in this Bill. The best way to ensure that is to accept these Amendments, and particularly that which states quite clearly that the Board, by notice in writing, may require the information that is needed for the Board to carry out their duties. That is wide enough. It gives the Board the opportunity to carry out their duties. The Minister has suggested that they must have all the information necessary. To accept these Amendments would be to make that position secure.

I suggest also that something might happen which I sincerely hope will not happen in relation to subsection (3) of this new Clause, which deals with imports. If the new Iron and Steel Board get into some kind of dispute with B.I.S.C. (Ore), then B.I.S.C. (Ore) can refuse to supply information to the Board as long as a dispute is going on. As a result of the legal case which would follow their refusal, subsection (4) lays down that B.I.S.C. (Ore) can be fined £50. That would be worth nothing at all as a penalty to the Iron and Steel Federation. Having regard to the size of the industry, I would ask the Minister, in relation to subsection (4), to reconsider whether the pattern which he is following of the statistical information required by the Board of Trade—which he has taken as a model in this case—is sufficient for the purposes which we have in view in this Bill.

It is not only in relation to B.I.S.C. (Ore) that subsection (3) may have to be brought into operation. The Iron and Steel Federation might compel companies associated with them to withhold information and in such circumstances the penalties provided in subsection (4) would be totally inadequate. In any case, I imagine that if a dispute arose, the Federation might set aside beforehand out of their million-a-year income a sum to compensate such companies as refused the requested information. That kind of thing almost happened under the aegis of the Corporation and I hope it will not happen under this Board. I hope that we are prepared to deal with the Iron and Steel Federation if they stand out. I believe that these Amendments ought to be accepted by the Minister on the ground of the public interest.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

I want to make only a brief comment on the speech of the Minister because he echoed a thought which he expressed on a previous occasion and it will be very dangerous if he continues along that line of thought. His argument was that if the Board wanted to get greater efficiency in this industry it was not necessary for them to ask what were the production costs of the various units. He said that inefficiency would be shown by the high prices charged by certain units in the industry; the Board would be able to use the weapon of maximum price fixing, and when they did so they would be able to ask for production costs.

Apart from the fact that that is a very clumsy way of discovering what are the production costs, I suggest that the Minister must think very carefully about his idea that the Board will be able to increase the efficiency of the industry by playing about with maximum prices. That is quite a hopeless weapon for this purpose, although I think the Minister believes it is a useful one. If certain units in the industry are inefficient it is not the slightest use clamping down maximum prices below those which the industry is charging. It may result in driving a unit out of production altogether. In any case, it may not be possible to discover what is wrong, and I cannot think of a more clumsy method of creating greater efficiency in the industry.

I do not want to pursue the matter further because it does not arise very directly on this Amendment, but I thought it necessary to comment upon what I regard as a dangerous thought in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. We are completely dissatisfied with the reply he has given. We believe that the Board should have powers by which they can make comparisons, obtain a proper picture of the industry and take the necessary steps to create efficiency. They should be empowered to ascertain what are the comparable production costs in various units, and as the Minister has rejected that argument we propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 236.

Division No. 109.] AYES [8.32 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Colegate, W. A. Heald, Sir Lionel
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Heath, Edward
Alport, C. J. M. Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Higgs, J. M. C
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Cranborne, Viscount Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Arbuthnot, John Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hirst, Geoffrey
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Crouch, R. F. Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Holt, A. F.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Davidson, Viscountess Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Baldwin, A. E. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Horobin, I. M.
Banks, Col. C. Deedes, W. F. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Barber, Anthony Digby, S. Wingfield Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Barlow, Sir John Dodds-Parker, A. D. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Baxter, A. B. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks Conner, P. W. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Doughty, C. J. A. Hurd, A. R.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Drewe, C. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Duthie, W. S. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Birch, Nigel Erroll, F. J. Jennings, R.
Bishop, F. P. Fell, A Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Black, C. W. Finlay, Graeme Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Boothby, R. J. G Fisher, Nigel Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Bossom, A. C. Fort, R. Kaberry, D
Bowen, E. R. Foster, John Kerr, H. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Lambert, Hon. G
Boyle, Sir Edward Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D (Pollok) Lambton, Viscount
Braine, B. R. Garner-Evans, E. H. Lancaster, Col. C. G
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Godber, J. B Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Gough, C. F. H Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Gower, H. R Linstead, H. N
Brooman-White, R. C. Graham, Sir Fergus Llewellyn, D. T
Browne, Jack (Govan) Gridley, Sir Arnold Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T. Grimo[...]d, J. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Bullard, D. G. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Longden, Gilbert
Bullock, Capt. M. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Low, A. R. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Burden, F. F. A. Harden J. R. E. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Butler, Rt Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hare, Hon. J. H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Campbell, Sir David Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Carr, Robert Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye) Macdonald, Sir Peter
Channon, H. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) McKibbin, A. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Harvie-Watt, Sir George Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Cole, Norman Hay, John Maclean, Fitzroy
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Peyton, J. W. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Pickthorn, K W. M. Stevens, G. P.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Pilkington, Capt. R. A Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Pitman, I. J Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Powell, J Enoch Storey, S.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)
Markham, Major S. F. Profumo, J. D. Studholme, H. G.
Marples, A. E. Raikes, Sir Victor Summers, G S.
Maude, Angus Rayner, Brig. R. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Maudling, R. Redmayne, M. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Remnant, Hon. P. Teeling, W.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Renton, D. L. M. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mellor, Sir John Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Molson, A. H. E. Robertson, Sir David Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Robson-Brown, W. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nicholls, Harmar Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Tilney, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Roper, Sir Harold Turner, H. F. L
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Russell, R. S. Turton, R. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Vosper, D. F.
Nugent, G. R. H. Savory, Prof Sir Douglas Wade, D. W.
Nutting, Anthony Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Oakshott, H. D. Scott, R. Donald Walker-Smith, D. C.
Odey, G. W. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Shepherd, William Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S Smithers. Sir Waldron (Orpington) Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) Soames, Capt. C. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Osborne, C. Spearman, A. C. M. York, C.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O Speir, R. M.
Perkins, W. R. D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pete, Brig. C. H. M. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) Sir H. Butcher and Mr. Wills.
Adams, Richard Dodds, N. N. Janner, B.
Albu, A. H. Donnelly, D. L. Jay, Rt. Hon, D. P. T.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Jeger, George (Goole)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Edelman, M. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R. Edwards, John (Brighouse) Johnson, James (Rugby)
Awbery, S. S Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Balfour, A. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Jones. Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bartley, P. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bence, C. R. Fernyhough, E. Keenan, W.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Fienburgh, W. Kenyon, C.
Benson, G. Finch, H. J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Beswick, F. Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.) King, Dr. H. M.
Blackburn, F. Follick, M. Kinky, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Blyton, W. R. Freeman, John (Watford) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Boardman, H. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Gibson, C. W. Lewis, Arthur
Brockway, A. F. Glanville, James Lindgren, G. S.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Gordon [...]alker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. MaeColl, J E
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McGhee, H. G
Burton, Miss F. E. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) McGovern, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) McInnes, J.
Callaghan, L. J. Hamilton, W. W. McLeavy, F.
Champion, A. J. Hannan, W. MacMillan. M K. (Western Isles)
Chapman, W. D. Hardy, E. A. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Clunie, J. Hargreaves, A MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Collick, P. H Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Mainwaring, W. H
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hastings, S. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Cove, W. G. Hayman, F. H. Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hobson, C. R. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Crosland, C. A. R. Holman, P Manuel, A. C.
Crossman, R. H. S. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Mayhew, C. P.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Houghton, Douglas Mellish, R. J
Daines, P. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Messer, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mikardo, Ian
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Mitchison, G. R
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Monslow, W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Moody, A. S.
Davies. Stephen (Merthyr) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Morley, R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Deer, G. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Delargy, H. J Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Mort, D. L.
Moyle, A. Ross, William Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Murray, J. D. Shackleton, E. A. A. Viant, S. P.
Nally, W. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Wallace, H. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E Watkins, T. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J Short, E W Webb, Rt. Hon- M. (Bradford, C.)
Oldfield, W. H. Shurmer, P L. E. Weitzman, D.
Oliver, G. H. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Oswald, T. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wells, William (Walsall)
Padley, W. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) West, D. G.
Paget, R. T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Wheeldon, W. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Palmer, A. M. F. Sorensen, R. W. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Pannell, Charles Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Pargiter, G. A. Steele, T. Wigg, George
Paton, J. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Peart, T. F. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Wilkins, W. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Willey, F. T.
Popplewell, E. Stross, Dr. Barnett Williams, David (Neath)
Porter, G. Swingler, S. T. Williams, Rev Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Price, Joseph (Westhoughton) Sylvester, G. O. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Proctor, W. T. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Pryde, D. J Taylor, John (West Lothian) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Rankin, John Thomas, George (Cardiff) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Reeves, J. Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Reid, William (Camlaehie) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Wyatt, W. L.
Rhodes, H Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Yates, V. F.
Robens, Rt. Hon A. Thornton, E Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thurtle, Ernest
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Timmons, J TELLERS FOR TILE NOES:
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Tomney, F. Mr. Bowden end Mr. Pearson
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Turner-Samuels, M

Question put. and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.