HC Deb 16 April 1956 vol 551 cc717-31
Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert: The Commission shall include in their annual report under subsection (7) of section four of the Transport Act, 1947, particulars of any exercise by the Minister of his powers under the provisio to this subsection which takes place during the year. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) himself, I think, moved an Amendment to provide that the exercise of the Minister's power to consent or to revoke his consent should be by Statutory Instrument. I said at the time that I was unable to accept the Amendment in the terms in which the Opposition had put it down, but I offered to consider, on Report, inserting an Amendment requiring the Commission to include in its annual report a clear statement of such consents or revocations. It was to honour that proposal that this Amendment was put down.

I think that this is the best way of getting a record of such consents or revocations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they would be debated in the House because they would appear in the Commission's annual report. As I have said, it was to fulfil that obligation that this Amendment was put down.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sparks

I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the end to insert: (7) This section and the said section five, as amended by this section, shall cease to have effect at the end of twelve months after the passing of this Act or at the end of such further period as the Minister may at any time and from time to time by order prescribe: Provided that no such order shall be made until a draft thereof (which shall be accompanied by a report on offers and sales made under this section and under the said section five amended as aforesaid) has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolutions of each house of Parliament. The Clause appears to be an extremely complicated one, though in substance it mainly, if not wholly, refers to the disposal of the British Road Services parcels organisation of the British Transport Commission and to the fleet of meat vehicles. The Clause as it stands places no time limit whatever upon the disposal of those two important transport organisations and, in fact, enables the two organisations to be sold off in bits and pieces over an indefinite period of time. We believe that to be a very bad thing indeed.

The Bill enables the Minister to take steps to dispose of the two organisations, but we believe that in the interests of transport and of transport users as a whole a time limit should be placed upon this operation. In the Fifth Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board the up-to-date position is set out in regard to the parcels and the meat vehicles. In regard to the parcels company, the Report says: As stated in our previous report, the property of the Parcels and Smalls organisation of British Road Services was made over on 1st January, 1955, to a company known as B.R.S. (Parcels) Ltd. On the 25th October the Commission with the approval of the Board, issued a public invitation to tender for the whole of the shares of the Company (7 million shares of £1, fully paid). The invitation, which had to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act, took the form of a prospectus too lengthy to be reproduced in this report. The prospectus was inserted in seven national newspapers and was widely noticed in the Press. The closing date for tenders is 25th January, 1956. I am not aware—I do not know whether other hon. Members are—of the results of that application, but the fact is that, despite there being a closing date, this Clause, as I understand it, enables the disposal to continue, if thought necessary, over a much longer period of time.

In regard to the meat vehicles, the Report says: We reported previously that a large unit which contained 498 vehicles, the great bulk of the Commission's 'chartered' meat fleet, had been offered for a second time and had attracted one tender. The Commission had recommended to the Board the refusal of the tender, but the Board had not approved that recommendation and the matter had therefore been referred to the Minister on 23rd May in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (8). The Minister's decision was given by letter dated 2nd September, as follows: 'I am to refer to your letter of 7th June regarding a disagreement between the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission as to the acceptance of a tender for the Large Meat Unit No. 6012. The Minister has carefully considered the submissions put to him by the Commission and the Board and has decided that he would not be justified in directing them to accept the tender of £552,000'. The Report goes on to say: We have thought it advisable to defer reoffering these vehicles until the terms of the amending legislation are known."— that is, the legislation with which we are dealing today.

In view of that complete and absolute failure to dispose of the meat fleet after two attempts to do so, I do not know what better success the Minister expects to have by continuing under this Clause to dispose of this transport unit. As I said earlier, we think that a time limit should be placed upon the disposal of these two organisations. We are suggesting in our Amendment that the time limit should be twelve months and that sales should cease twelve months from the passing of the Act. If that is not a sufficiently long time in which to dispose of these two organisations, how much longer does the right hon. Gentleman want? I should have thought that it would have been sufficient.

However, the Amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to extend that period if he thinks fit. If he decides to do that, we ask him to take power to do it by a Statutory Order laid before the House, so that we may know the circumstances under which he exercises his powers to extend the time beyond twelve months.

I would only add that the terminal date should be inserted in the Bill so that the British Transport Commission, and those using the transport services of the parcels company and the meat fleet, should know with whom they are dealing. They should not be faced with a period of years during which they will not know to whom the concern belongs. Therefore it is in the general interest of all concerned that a time limit shall be placed upon this proposed transaction. In that way the matter will be settled, and everyone will know from a certain date where they stand. They can then carry on with some degree of confidence in the knowledge that this controversy, which has gone on for a long time, has at last been finally settled.

That will not be the case unless the Amendment is accepted, and the tail end of a very sad story will continue for years. We feel that the time has come to call a halt and I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this reasonable Amendment, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Mellish

I beg to second the Amendment.

When an Amendment on similar lines was moved in Committee the Minister said that it would wreck the Bill. With great respect, I would point out that the present position is wrecking the future prospects of British Road Services.

British Road Services have a right to know when this sordid and sorry tale of transport is to be ended. This shocking business has gone on for far too long. I think it can, be fairly said by hon. Members of all parties that British Road Services has done a good job of work under the circumstances, but this matter has been in the political cockpit for a long time now. I know, having spoken to people employed by British Road Services—welfare officers, drivers' mates and maintenance men—that they still do not know for certain what is to be the future of the industry.

The trade union movement is worried and unhappy. We know that the Bill represents a somersault in Government policy. We know that the Minister is on record as saying that he wants to see interference with road transport ended soon. He said something to that effect in Committee, and I hope he will repeat it during the Third Reading debate—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

indicated assent.

Mr. Mellish

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nod his agreement.

If that is the policy of the Minister of Transport he ought not to be bothered about the opposition of one or two unimportant back benchers. The traders of this country are the most important people. They demanded a first-class trunk service, which, for the first time in the history of Britain, they have had. They now have interlocking services and first-class maintenance depots. When drivers begin trunk journeys, they know that they will have somewhere decent to sleep, unlike the position in the old days. So we have reached a state where our trunk services are better than ever before.

No one can deny that, unless he has a private vested interest in the industry. We are asking no more and no less than that a time limit shall be imposed so that the British Transport Commission can know that on and after a certain date it will not be hounded any more. Imagine the position of the owner of an industry, who does not know when it is likely to be sold. The Tory Party has always said that incentive is necessary. Should not British Road Services be given an incentive? What incentive is there to a man to improve his industry when he does not know when it is likely to be sold? Indeed, if this industry is made more efficient, there is more likelihood that it will be sold. Therefore let us put an end to this sorry story and impose a final date.

I realise that I am wasting my time in speaking, so far as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is concerned. So I appeal to other hon. Gentlemen. This is the British Transport Commission. This is British Road Services. I am one of those who think that it is a fine thing to have such a national undertaking. I am proud to think that one day we shall take this matter out of the cockpit of party politics.

I repeat what I said in Committee, when I pointed out where the Conservative party went wrong in 1953. I understand the basic objection of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the principle of nationalisation. However, they should have determined, as the result of a probe into the industry, to show how it could be made more efficient. If they had done that, they could have bragged at the next General Election that the Conservative Party had made British Road Services more efficient than ever before.

What did they do? They came to power and brought forward legislation which attempted to destroy the transport industry. That is why this Bill had to come into being. We are asking for the sorry story to be ended by giving the British Transport Commission a definite date. Even at this late stage we ask the Minister to agree that twelve months is a reasonable time in which the British Transport Commission will know that the attacks of its opponents will cease.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I trust sincerely that the Government will not accept the Amendment. I noticed, in the Committee stage, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary properly referred to the necessity for speed in the disposal of the remaining vehicles. I quote his words. He said: We are not able to say exactly how many vehicles are still to be sold. There will, however, shortly be published an additional list. Later, he said: Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1953, will continue to apply even after this Bill is on the Statute Book … We do not intend that as a result of the passing of the Bill there shall be any slowing down in the disposal of the vehicles which remain in the hands of British Road Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 44–45.] That is as sufficient a guarantee in this matter as the Opposition could expect. It is of the utmost importance when we come to the future sales—I say nothing of the past—that those sales should be as speedy as possible, and that there should be proper consultation with the interests concerned. In the case of these disposals, to which objection is apparently taken because the Opposition desires a time limit, it is important that they should be in reasonable lots and, in particular, that they should be properly classified. This will ensure that the large vehicles, the six and eight-wheelers, which remain to be disposed of, are sold in one reasonable lot, and that will encourage the sale of the smaller and older vehicles in other reasonable lots. As I see it, that will lead to the rapid disposal and dispersal of the remaining assets which require to be disposed of.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

It appears to me that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has not read the Amendment. In it we are talking about the disposal not of ordinary lorries but of the parcel service and the meat service. The hon. Gentleman appears to be directing his arguments to something quite different.

Mr. Rees-Davies

As I read it, the Amendment covers not only the meat service and the parcel service but other services.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Only when they are formed into companies.

Mr. Rees-Davies

In the case of the disposal of the companies, the vehicles are not all of one type or class. We are dealing with a sale, whether one disposes of the company as a whole or whether one does not wish to dispose of it as a whole. While it is important that the principle of speed should apply in this matter, it is also necessary to ascertain the best method of sale to be adopted. It seems to me there is no need for the Amendment, in the light of the assurance given by the Minister during the Committee stage on an Amendment which, although not identical with the present one, was along very similar lines.

Mr. Mellish

We do not quarrel too much with the present Minister because we have some confidence in him. The trouble is that we do not know how long he will hold his present office. Does the hon. Member think we should wait until all the assets are sold? Ought there not to be an end? If so, what should be the time factor?

Mr. Rees-Davies

There is one obvious factor, and that is the 1953 Act, which determines the whole matter. We are only in the early part of 1956 and we have another Bill. There is abundant time in which any further arrangements may be made. Transport Bills are becoming almost an everyday hobby of the House. I am delighted to find that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) shares the confidence that I and my hon. Friends have in the Minister.

Mr. Mellish

The trouble is that the present Minister will not hold his office long. He will be sacked.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Having heard what has been said on both sides of the House, I have no doubt that we shall have a long, happy and glorious life with the present Minister. I trust that the Government will stand firm in opposing the Amendment.

Mr. Molson

I am, naturally, familiar with the point raised in the Standing Committee by the Opposition, who wished to have some assurance that a time will come when the proposed disposals under the Bill will be terminated. In Standing Committee I had to say that I was not able to advise the Committee to accept the Opposition Amendment, and I could not, for two entirely different reasons, advise the House to accept the present Amendment.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for recalling what I said in Standing Committee, that it was not the Government's intention that these matters should drag on indefinitely. We are not in a position to mention a date by which the disposal of vehicles and property by the Commission will be terminated because it is obvious that we shall have to see how the sales go. However, I said on behalf of my right hon. Friend—I have his permission to repeat the assurance—that he wishes to see the sales brought to an end as soon as it is reasonably possible.

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was in some degree right in what he said about bringing to an end the possibility of the sale of the two companies dealing with meat and parcels which are likely to be formed. After listening to the hon. Member's speech, I have no doubt that what he really intended by the Amendment was that after the lapse of twelve months it should no longer be an obligation for the meat fleet and parcel fleet to be sold but that they should be retained by the Commission.

That would not be the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment. It provides that Clause 2, which amends Section 5 of the 1953 Act, would cease to operate after the twelve months. If it does not operate, Section 5 of the 1953 Act will come back into operation. If an order were not made, vehicles and other property in the companies could not be sold in companies but would have to be sold in transport units under Section 3 of the 1953 Act or as chattels without the right to special A licences under Section 6 of that Act.

I have indicated that even if the Amendment gave effect to the intention very clearly explained by the hon. Member for Acton, the Government would not be able to accept it. However, it would not have the effect that he intends. It would merely mean that the 1953 Act would come back into operation in its full rigour. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Sparks

Surely, if the hon. Gentleman otherwise agrees with the principle of the Amendment, the Government could rectify the weakness if they so thought fit.

Mr. Molson

I indicated that even if the Amendment had the effect which the hon. Gentleman intended we should not be prepared to accept it. The reason is that under the Bill, as hon. Members opposite have taken great pleasure in pointing out, we have made a substantial amendment of the general policy laid down in the 1953 Act. We have agreed that the trunk services should continue permanently to be nationalised. As at present advised, we are not prepared to agree that the parcels company and the meat company, when formed, should necessarily remain permanently nationalised. We are prepared to continue to attempt to sell them to private investors. We have made it plain that we think that two or three years of successful operation and publication of balance sheets is a necessary preliminary to a successful sale of that kind. Therefore, we should not be prepared to agree to an Amendment, even if it were aptly drafted, for the purpose of terminating the experiment at the end of twelve months.

Mr. Mellish

Surely the hon. Gentleman is saying that the harder these people work and the more profit they make in nationalised industry the more likely they are to be sold out to competitors. What sort of policy is that?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson

I can give those who are employed in these companies the absolute assurance that they can go on for a few years under the ownership of the British Transport Commission. At the end of that time, if these companies are successfully sold, there is not the slightest reason why the terms of service of those employed in the parcels company or the meat company should in any way deteriorate. It does not normally affect the conditions of employment of people in a company if the shares are sold by one company to another.

Mr. Mellish

Surely that argument is fallacious, because the whole point is that this was a vast undertaking and because of that did a grand job of work for the consumer. Now that it is to be sold, it cannot give the people who are employed in the industry the same conditions as they hitherto enjoyed. Therefore, that is a false promise, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is false.

Mr. Molson

I have not made, and have no intention of making, any such false promise. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that before he agreed to a sale he would have to be satisfied that the conditions would; be reasonable for those employed in these two companies. I have made plain in Standing Committee, without giving any commitment for the future if any unforeseen circumstances arise, that we have at present no intention of breaking up the parcels service. It is not given to us to look into the distant future, but I feel that there is no reason why any of those employed by the parcels company should feel any apprehension about the future.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

We, of course, accept the fact stated to us by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the wording of the Amendment would not carry out the intention which we have in mind. That is one of the difficulties which always arises for the Opposition, which has not the technical help that the Government have in drafting Amendments. Our intention, however, is perfectly clear, but the hon. Gentleman has told us that if our intention had been expressed fully in the Amendment the Government disagree with it and would not have accepted it. We much regret that.

We appreciate that the Government are in a difficulty. The Minister said in. Committee, and we have to accept the force of the argument, that if we said that the parcels and meat companies had to be sold at the end of the year and there was no possible extension of that period it might be that someone would be able to buy the services much cheaper than they ought to be able to, because it would be a forced sale. There is strength in that argument, but we thought that in our Amendment today we had overcome that difficulty.

The Amendment differs from that which we moved in Committee, as we now suggest that while the Minister should be under an obligation to sell the companies within a year, he should also have power to postpone that date for a special reason, while keeping the matter under complete Parliamentary control, which is what we want. If the Minister felt that he could not sell the services at the end of the year and required another year or two, he could bring the matter before the House and we could discuss it, and that is what we are asking for in the Amendment.

It must be admitted by the House that uncertainty for these companies is extraordinarily bad. It is bad for everybody concerned. It is bad for the workers in the companies and bad for the Commission as a whole. Organisational problems arise about who is to be moved into or out of the companies, and the whole atmosphere becomes poisoned and morale gets lower year after year, with nobody knowing whether the companies are to continue under some form of public jurisdiction or are to be sold to private enterprise.

We therefore press upon the Government the desirability of making an end of such uncertainty, and we ask them to take this matter into their own hands. There should be an end to the uncertainty as soon as possible, for the sake of the efficiency of the companies themselves. That is the point which we have raised. It is not so much a political point, because politically we do not want these undertakings sold at all. We think it entirely contrary to the national interest that they should be sold; but we say that if the Government are going to sell them there should be the minimum of uncertainty about it. Although this is a matter of detail it is one of great importance. We hope that even now the Government might, after further consideration, accept our proposal. If not, we would ask the House to divide on it.

Mr. Watkinson

The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has made a very clear point. We want to try to meet it as far as we can, particularly in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about the uncertainty for the people who work in this great industry. It is something of which I take great account but, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we cannot allow ourselves to be put in a position in which we have a forced sale, because in any kind of forced sale we should never get the proper terms and conditions.

I follow the right hon. Member's point about coming back to the House and asking for an extension of the twelve months' period. I cannot accept that, for the reason that while I attach great importance to continuity, it must be continuity with, as far as possible, political heat and argument removed from it. If I came to the House asking for an extension, the Opposition, quite rightly, would ask me to give the reasons. It would be open to the Opposition to make any searching inquiry they wished into the merits of the would-be purchaser.

I want to say with all the force that I can command that, whilst we cannot accept the Amendment, we do attach the greatest importance to trying to give these companies and the people who work in them a fair deal. That is why I would reinforce what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said—that I am not prepared to sell the companies to any bidder and I intend to run them for a term of years so that they may have at least some continuity for the future. As I said in Committee, if the Disposal Board goes, as well it may, I propose to have some other body to whom I can refer and whose advice I can take in the national interest when the time comes to dispose of the companies.

Mr. Mellish

I accept the Minister's personal assurances, but there is nothing written in the Bill. I am not being facetious about this, but what guarantee have we that the right hon. Gentleman's term of office might not be limited? We do not know, and we might have another Minister who did not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Watkinson

That is a perfectly fair point, but one which I cannot meet. I can see no way of writing safeguards into the Bill. I can well understand that this may not be sufficient for hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but I want to put on record as plainly as I can what I intend to do. If they think that that is not sufficiently binding for the future, I cannot help that.

I have said that I do not intend to throw these companies away. They will have at least some years' continuity, because I am sure that that is in the national interest. I intend, in the national interest, to arm myself or my successors with some kind of independent advice, if and when the time comes to sell the companies, so that the interests of those working in the companies may be safeguarded, and so that we may make sure that a proper price for them is secured. I am sorry that, after very careful thought and after taking the best advice, I cannot go further than that. I hope, therefore, that on those grounds the right hon. Gentleman may feel disposed not to press this Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 209.

Division No. 144.] AYES [5.40 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Hamilton, W. W. Pargiter, G. A.
Albu, A. H. Hannan, W. Parker, J.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hastings, S. Paton, J.
Anderson, Frank Hayman, F. H. Peart, T. F.
Bacon, Miss Alice Herbison, Miss M. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bartley, P. Hobson, C. R. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Holman, P.
Benson, G. Houghton, Douglas Probert, A. R.
Beswick, F. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Proctor, W. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Randall, H. E.
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Blenkinsop, A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reeves, J.
Blyton, W. R. Hunter, A. E. Reid, William
Boardman, H. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Boyd, T. C. Janner, B. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Ross, William
Brockway, A. F. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Johnson, James (Rugby) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Burke, W. A. Kenyon, C. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Burton, Miss F. E. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Skeffington, A. M.
Callaghan, L. J. Lewis, Arthur Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lindgren, G. S. Sparks, J. A.
Champion, A. J. Logan, D. G. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Chetwynd, G. R. MacColl, J. E. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) McGhee, H. G. Stones, W. (Consett)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) McKay, John (Wallsend) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Cove, W. G. McLeavy, Frank Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Cronin, J. D. Mahon, Simon Sylvester, G. O.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderstd, E.) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Deer, G. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thornton, E.
Delargy, H. J. Mason, Roy Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N. Mellish, R. J. Warbey, W. N.
Donnelly, D. L. Messer, Sir F. Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Michlson, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Monslow, W. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Moody, A. S. West, D. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Moss, R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Moyle, A. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Fernyhough, E. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Oliver, G. H. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Gibson, C. W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oram, A. E. Woof, R. E.
Greenwood, Anthony Orbach, M. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Oswald, T. Zilliacus, K.
Grey, C. F. Owen, W. J.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Padley, W. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Mr. Short and Mr. Pearson.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Body, R. F. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Aitken, W. T. Boothby, Sir Robert Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Crouch, R. F.
Arbuthnot, John Braine, B. R. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Armstrong, C. W. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Dance, J. C. G.
Atkins, H. E. Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Deedes, W. F.
Baldwin, A. E. Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Digby, Simon Wingfield
Balniel, Lord Bryan, P. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Barlow, Sir John Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Doughty, C. J. A.
Barter, John Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Drayson, G. B.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Burden, F. F. A. du Cann, E. D. L.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Butcher, Sir Herbert Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Channon, H. Errington, Sir Eric
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Chichester-Clark, R. Farey-Jones, F. W.
Bidgood, J. C. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Fell, A.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Cole, Norman Finlay, Graeme
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Fisher, Nigel
Bishop, F. P. Cooper-Key, E. M. Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Black, C. W. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)
Freeth, D. K. Langford-Holt, J. A. Renton, D. L. M.
Gibson-Watt, D. Leavey, J. A. Ridsdale, J. E.
Glover, D. Leburn, W. G. Roper, Sir Harold
Godber, J. B. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Russell, R. S.
Gower, H. R. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus Linstead, Sir H. N. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Shepherd, William
Green, A. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R. Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Spearman, A. C. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Spier, R. M.
Gurden, Harold Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H. Macdonald, Sir Peter Stevens, Geoffrey
Harris, Reader (Heston) McKibbin, A. J. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Maddan, Martin Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Teeling, W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Markham, Major Sir Frank Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Marlowe, A. A. H. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Marples, A. E. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey Marshall, Douglas Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Mathew, R. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Horobin, Sir Ian Maude, Angus Touche, Sir Gordon
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Mawby, R. L. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Howard, John (Test) Molson, A. H. E. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Moore, Sir Thomas Vane, W. M. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Nabarro, G. D. N. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Nairn, D. L. S. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Hulbert, Sir Norman Neave, Airey Vosper, D. F.
Hyde, Montgomery Nicholls, Harmar Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Nield, Basil (Chester) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Iremonger, T. L. Nugent, G. R. H. Wall, Major Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Page, R. G. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pannell, N. A. (Krikdale) Webbe, Sir H.
Joseph, Sir Keith Partridge, E. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Keegan, D. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Pott, H. P. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kerr, H. W. Powell, J. Enoch Wood, Hon. R.
Kershaw, J. A. Raikes, Sir Victor Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Kimball, M. Rawlinson, Peter
Lambert, Hon. G. Redmayne, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lambton, Viscount Rees-Davies, W. R. Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Remnant, Hon. P.