HC Deb 16 April 1956 vol 551 cc731-45
Mr. Pargiter

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 23 and insert: retained by the Commission or by a company under their direct or indirect control for the purpose of performing contracts made or to be made for the carriage of goods in vehicles of the Commission or of such a company as aforesaid for or in connection with the trade or business of the other party to each contract during a continuous period of not less than one year or so retained in order to be available for the said purpose: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall restrict the transfer of such vehicles as aforesaid between the Commission and any such company or between any such companies". The Amendment is designed to extract from the Minister a statement of what he intends to do in fulfilment of the promise which was made during the Committee stage that he would do something in this matter if it were at all possible. I need not burden the House with all the arguments; the salient point is that we are concerned at the fact that the Clause, as at present drawn, means that when the Commission finishes a certain contract—even if it were going to renew it at a later date—it has to dispose of all the vehicles used in that contract.

Equally, it would not be possible for it to have a reserve pool of vehicles which it could use in order to meet abnormal seasonal demands. It would be tied absolutely to the number of vehicles used for the contract and, in order to meet the problem of seasonal demands from the companies with which it was operating, would be obliged to hold extra vehicles, which would mean that it would lose the flexibility which it now enjoys.

The Minister was good enough to say that the Government had no intention of hampering the Commission in its operation of these contract vehicles, within the limits of the Bill. We are asking what has been done to ensure that vehicles which become free at the end of the contract can be used for any new contract which may become available or, alternatively, to what extent the Commission will be able to operate the additional vehicles which it holds at present in the same flexible manner as it now does.

The Minister has said that he wants these vehicles to operate in the most effective manner. In other words, he wants to see the minimum number of vehicles doing the maximum amount of work, whether for private enterprise or for the Commission, and whether or not they operate under contract licences; and also to see that, having undertaken a contract to give a service, the Commission shall be able to give it without being hamstrung at any point. If the Minister is prepared to say that he has examined this matter, and that the Government are prepared, at some stage, to make the necessary Amendment, so that the Commission will not be tied definitely to selling vehicles immediately upon the termination of a contract, or, alternatively, will not be obliged to dispose of them to a company, we shall be satisfied.

I accept the fact that if they were handed to a company in which the Commission was either directly or indirectly interested, they would be regarded as having been disposed of and, consequently, the company would be quite free to operate and retain them and would not be obliged to sell them, as was contemplated in the case of the Commission. We are not asking that the Transport Commission should have any ad lib authority to do exactly as it pleases in this matter, but we think that some flexibility should be permitted within the limits of the number of vehicles which it now has engaged in contract work, and that it should be permitted to retain sufficient vehicles to carry out effectively the operation of this part of its undertaking.

Mr. Mellish

I beg to second the Amendment.

As I said during the Committee stage, when talking of contract vehicles we must remember the early history of transport. It was the type of vehicles used for contract work and the manner in which they were obtained which brought into being the A, B and C licensing system. Governments in those early days—both Conservative and Labour—recognised that because of the way in which the transport industry was being run some measure of control was necessary. It was to knock out the odd man, doing the odd job under almost any conditions, that the licensing system was introduced.

One of the features of the work of British Road Services which has not been clearly understood by some hon. Members is that its contract services have become better each year. Many large firms which today hire vehicles from B.R.S. have their names on the vehicles. This service does a very fine job. Indeed, those of us who are interested in transport know that many hirers were very concerned and worried about the possibility of the whole structure of transport being destroyed by the 1953 Act. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the Commission is not placed in an impossible and false position.

As the Bill stands, when a contract ends all the vehicles which have been engaged in it are delicensed and are not available to B.R.S. for any new contract work. We do not ask for a huge general pool, but we think that some latitude ought to be allowed to the Commission and that it should be able, at the end of a contract, to transfer the vehicles which have been engaged in it to a new contract, or to supplement the number of vehicles engaged in an existing contract, or to general transport work. We think that there should be a little give and take here. We mentioned this matter in Committee, and I believe that the Minister was sympathetic and wanted to help. This is something which we regard as being necessary in order to enable British Road Services to continue to do the fine job of work which it is doing at present.

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) are quite right; I did undertake to look at this matter again. During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Southall and others set out quite clearly the facts as they saw them. I have looked at those facts very carefully, purely from a practical point of view, and the best thing I can do is to tell hon. Members exactly what was the position I found when I did so. It may then be seen that there is not a very great issue here.

First, there is the argument that these vehicles would be useful for another type of contract. I am advised that, very often, the contract itself stipulates a certain type of vehicle or body, and that many of these vehicles could not be so transferred, and would merely have to go into the general service part of the fleet. I have asked the Commission for its estimate of the number of vehicles it would require, and it has no reason to give a low figure. It says that not more than half the vehicles could be used again under any circumstances. I think that the proportion is possibly less than that, but the Commission itself says that it would certainly not be more than half. It is quite sensible to assume that most vehicles would not really be required again for a new contract. In addition, many customers quite rightly specify new vehicles at the start of a new contract.

That is the answer to those who say that we shall be seriously hampering the Commission in its contract service if we insist upon this provision. I certainly do not want to do that, and have no intention of doing so, but as far as I can ascertain—and as I have been advised—the selling of these vehicles will not hamper the Commission carrying out its contract hire work. It is certainly my wish to provide that the Commission can do so, but it must be under a proper competitive system.

6.0 p.m.

The other point was whether it was right to sell these vehicles as chattels or whether they should be sold with the right to a special A licence. Possibly we are not in disagreement here. If the vehicles were sold with the right to a special A licence that could be used for any kind of haulage work, that would increase, I think unnecessarily, the total number of vehicles so licensed.

The total number of vehicles we are discussing is not the number that might fall to be sold but that which is likely to be used for contract work, and it is about 1,000 or 1,500. I think that the British Transport Commission is confident that it will retain the vast majority of its contracts, or about two-thirds or three-quarters of them. Good luck to it if it can.

The third point is that of those the Commission does not retain, about 50 per cent. of the lorries will not be of further use to the Commission for contract work, because of the stipulations which customers normally lay down. It was for these reasons that I felt that there was no great issue here and that, therefore, we should be right to leave matters as they stand.

I hope that after that explanation hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment. If I had felt that the present position would seriously hamper the Commission, I would have proposed to make a further Amendment on another occasion.

Mr. Pargiter

What is the position for the future? The Commission has a certain limited number of vehicles that it can switch over for breakdown work or for sudden rushes, seasonal demands, and occasions of that kind. Does the Minister say that the Transport Commission will be able to retain vehicles for that purpose?

Mr. Watkinson

I looked into that point—there is no issue here, and I want to give all the facts—and I am advised that there are only about 500 vehicles awaiting sale as chattels and that they are not float vehicles surplus to requirements. I give this undertaking. I think the point on retention is made. If I am satisfied that the Commission needs a certain float of vehicles to carry out properly its contract hire work and that the Bill bars it from keeping that float, which is a proper commercial thing to do, I will introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place to deal with the point, which is a separate point from the one which we have been discussing.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The Minister has made as plausible a case as he could, but it is necessary to look at the background of this matter of contract vehicles. We discussed it in Committee but the Bill remains, in our view, unfair to the Commission.

Under the 1953 Act, the Commission had to dispose of its contract vehicles in the same way as of other vehicles, and an agreement was made whereby, if the Commission was successful in renewing a contract with a company for which it had already been carrying goods, it would still have to sell the vehicles it was using for that contract and would have to buy further vehicles. That was a most ridiculous situation. The Commission was able to carry goods in vehicles with bodies specially constructed for the specific purpose of a company, but on renewal of contract had to sell those vehicles and buy new ones.

The Government finally realised, no doubt at the instigation of the Commission, the absurdity of that position and so provision is made in the Bill for retention by the Commission of contract vehicles where contracts are renewed. That is a step in the right direction. It removes the anomaly of the ridiculous manner of dealing with contract vehicles. Where we disagree with the Government over this matter is that we think the Bill does not go far enough. The position still remains that if the Commission does not renew a contract it will have to sell the vehicles.

We suggested in Committee, and hon. Members on both sides agreed, that it seemed unnecessary for the Commission to be compelled to dispose of its contract vehicles where, although it had not renewed a particular contract, it had been able to obtain a further contract from a different firm; in other words that it would be far better for the Commission to retain the contract vehicles and transfer them to other contract work. As the Minister has stated, it was agreed in Committee that the matter would be looked into further but that position was arrived at only after considerable argument and after the Opposition had succeeded in convincing the Committee that there was something in the case that they were making.

In Committee, I stated the position thus: All we are asking is that the Commission shall not be compelled to sell the vehicles when the contracts are not renewed. The Commission should be able to transfer the vehicles to other contracts or keep them in reserve. If such an undertaking will be considered, I would wish to ask how to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th March, 1956; c. 141.] We withdrew the Amendment on the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look into the point, but without committing himself in case it proved impossible to carry it out.

What the Minister has said this afternoon does not show that the point is impracticable or that these words are of sufficient significance or importance to be allowed to remain in the Bill. As far as I understand the figures there are about 1,000 or 1,500 contract vehicles to be dealt with and that probably two-thirds of them will be required to continue contracts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate is right. It is certainly a tribute to the Commission that two-thirds of its present contracts will be renewed by private enterprise firms and that the Commission will carry their goods exclusively. If two-thirds are renewed, that leaves 500 vehicles to be dealt with.

According to the Clause, those 500 vehicles will be disposed of as chattels by the Commission. It may be that some are not suitable for the contracts, but as the Commission does a large amount of bodywork I do not see why it should not be able to change those vehicle bodies to make them suitable for specific contracts. Some of my hon. Friends and I have visited depôts dealing with contract work in South London, and we saw the very large amount of bodywork being done there; and done extremely well, too. If only half those vehicles are suitable for further contract work that makes the figure 250.

May I remind the Minister that earlier today we were debating a question concerning 582 vehicles which are not to be permitted to have the special A licence, and that the Government thought it of sufficient importance to introduce an Amendment on the Committee stage to deprive the Commission of the A licence for those 582 vehicles? We think it is of sufficient importance to preserve the right of the Commission over these 250 or 500 vehicles, whichever might be the amount, and to move the Amendment and, I am afraid from the Government point of view, to press it. As a matter of principle we consider that if the Commission has proved itself successful, as it has, with its contract work, then if it is able to get further contracts, it should be able to use those vehicles which it now possesses which are suitable for further contract work. I would have thought that was reasonable and logical and would appeal to every Member of the House as being good business.

Mr. Nabarro

What sort of business?

Mr. Davies

The hon. Member does not understand what is or is not good business according to the standards we use in discussing the matter in this House.

Mr. Nabarro

I have been at it for many years now.

Mr. Davies

Although the Minister has tried to show that the matter is not of sufficient importance to call for a Division, suggesting that he will give further consideration to one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), I do not think that he has gone sufficiently far, after having ample opportunity between Committee and Report stage, on the basis of the discussions held and the undertaking given. I will, therefore, advise my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South)

During the Committee stage, when we were discussing a similar Amendment, a great deal of the argument was based upon the fear that this was something which was going back on the total number of vehicles the Commission would hold. I have listened with interest today to the discussion on this Amendment. I have noticed that throughout the course of that discussion this point did not arise until the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) aligned 250 vehicles in this Amendment with the 500 mentioned under the three-fortieths figure, which was dealt with under an earlier Amendment.

I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, in putting those two figures together and trying to prove the importance of these 250 vehicles, relating them to the 500, has shown that it is a fair supposition that the 250 figure is only another means of adding to the total number of vehicles which the Commission will be allowed to keep under the Bill.

Mr. Pargiter

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that these are only available and supposed to be used for contract purposes, not general haulage.

Mr. Cole

I am well aware that they are supposed to be used for that.

Mr. Pargiter

That is what they must be used for.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Cole

But also, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to stop the Commission from using some of their general service vehicles and appropriating them to its contracts, if they obtain contracts. It will therefore, I think, be agreed that the 250 is an increase in the total number of vehicles at the disposal of the Commission.

Mr. Ernest Davies

If the vehicles are transferred from general haulage to contract, they cannot be doing general haulage work at the same time.

Mr. Cole

That is quite obvious, but the point I am making is this. If the Commission is so successful with its contracts—and we are glad that it appears to be—if it has a pool of additional vehicles which would remain if this Amendment were passed, it then would not require to subtract from its number of general service vehicles to meet any contract it would obtain in the future. With all the good will in the world, I am bound to say that, although the point did not arise earlier in this debate, it is just one of the many similar Amendments we had in Committee—and there are more down on the Order Paper today—to get round the total number which is laid down in Clause 1.

Mr. Mellish

What is so wrong in having a small, general pool of contract vehicles? If the Commission has not got the contract vehicles, it has to go through all the procedure of applying for relicensing; and that would be senseless.

Mr. Cole

If the hon. Member would wait, I was going on to discuss the merits of the case on contract vehicles alone.

I would not have thought it was very businesslike for the B.T.C. or any other haulier carrying on business to keep 250 vehicles against the wall—for that is what it will amount to—in case a contract might arise in the near or distant future, especially since many of those contracts would need vehicles of a special type, as my right hon. Friend mentioned.

I am not at all certain that it is good business, or likely to be profitable, to have anything like 250 or 500 vehicles kept in hand in a pool, as one presumes they would be, against a possible future contract not yet obtained. We in this House try to enable the Commission to do its work in a businesslike way and make profits. If these vehicles are to be kept against a possible future event, and not in daily profitable use, then I would suggest the B.T.C. are not doing the wisest thing.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Does the hon. Gentleman consider it is good business, as the Clause now stands? If the Commission loses one contract but obtains another at the same time and is waiting for vehicles, it would not be allowed to transfer those vehicles. A contract is lost; a new contract is obtained at the same time, but the vehicles cannot be put to that use.

Mr. Cole

The hon. Gentleman is taking a specific point.

Mr. Davies

That is the whole point.

Mr. Cole

The purpose of this Amendment is to give power to the Commission to maintain a pool of vehicles. We have heard several times this afternoon that a number of vehicles put to contract work are specially built, and on occasions the contractor insists on a new vehicle. The Commission itself, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend, said that not more than half these vehicles would be available for new contracts. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) cannot make too much of that point.

We on this side of the House are concerned particularly about the inevitable potentialities for monopoly in the Transport Commission because of the number of vehicles it will have under its charge as a whole. I for one—and many of my hon. Friends, I believe, agree—am not anxious that this potential or actual monopoly power should be increased in the realm of contract business. Any organisation which has 250 or 500 vehicles at its disposal to put into any contract has, by that fact, an advantage over anyone else tendering for the same contract.

I want to ensure that all hauliers, B.T.C. or private, shall have the same kind of facilities when tendering for a contract, allowing no one special facilities because he has special vehicles waiting and ready for such use.

For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment but will reject it as it has those other Amendments designed to increase the number of vehicles retained by the Commission.

Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)

I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter and not dismiss it as of little importance. The workers in the nationalised transport industry are watching what is happening. It seems to me that those on the other side of the House are deliberately attempting to sabotage the industry and prevent it from doing its legitimate business on a basis of fair and equal competition. Was there ever anything so absolutely stupid as saying to the British Transport Commission, "You cannot use the vehicles you have got, but you must buy new ones in order to do your work?" The whole purpose of such an approach is to hamstring the Commission, prevent it from getting new contracts and to give an advantage to the friends of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Railway and transport workers are watching the kind of things which are done. They are exasperated with the conduct of the Tory Party in these matters. Tomorrow, no doubt, we shall hear the Chancellor's statement. I expect he will be appealing to us to minimise our demand for new vehicles in this country, yet today the Tory Party are taking deliberate action to compel the Transport Commission to buy new vehicles when they have others already available.

Mr. Nabarro

Rubbish.

Mr. Proctor

There never was a proposal which showed so clearly the prejudice those on the other side of the House have against nationalised transport. I hope the Minister will not regard this as a simple matter, but that he will, if he cannot accept this Amendment this afternoon, give real consideration to this question before the Bill gets to another place.

Very many letters have been received by the British Transport Commission expressing appreciation of the way in which it has carried out its work. It must be apparent to hon. Members opposite that the Commission can do this work more efficiently than private enterprise. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) made an extraordinary suggestion. He said that the Transport Commission should compete with private enterprise on equal terms and that the Commission should not have an advantage. Would he be prepared to agree that no private contractor should have a contract unless he used new vehicles?

That suggestion is absolute nonsense. It is an example of the way in which the Tory Party are trying to disrupt the nationalised transport of this country. They will find out that the workers are not prepared to become the victims of this inefficiency.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 158.

Division No. 145.] AYES [6.21 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Graham, Sir Fergus McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Aitken, W. T. Green, A. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Alport, C. J. M. Gresham Cooke, R. Maddan, Martin
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Grimond, J. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Arbuthnot, John Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Armstrong, C. W. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Atkins, H. E. Gurden, Harold Marples, A. E.
Balniel, Lord Hall, John (Wycombe) Marshall, Douglas
Barlow, Sir John Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H. Mathew, R.
Barter, John Harris, Reader (Heston) Maude, Angus
Baxter, Sir Beverley Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Mawby, R. L.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Molson, A. H. E.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Moore, Sir Thomas
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Harvie-Watt, Sir George Nabarro, G. D. N.
Bevins, J. ft. (Toxteth) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nairn, D. L. S.
Bidgood, J. C. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Neave, Airey
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Nicholls, Harmar
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nield, Basil (Chester)
Bishop, F. P. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nugent, G. R. H.
Black, C. W. Hirst, Geoffrey Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Body, R. F. Holland-Martin, C. J. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Boothby, Sir Robert Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Page, R. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Horobin, Sir Ian Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Partridge, E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Howard, John (Test) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bryan, P. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Pitman, I. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Pott, H. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A. Hulbert, Sir Norman Raikes, Sir Victor
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hyde, Montgomery Rawlinson, Peter
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hyton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Redmayne, M.
Channon, H. Iremonger, T. L. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Chichester-Clark, R. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Remnant, Hon. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Ridsdale, J. E.
Cole, Norman Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Roper, Sir Harold
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Russell, R. S.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Joseph, Sir Keith Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Shepherd, William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Keegan, D. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Crouch, R. F. Kerby, Capt. H. B. Spearman, A. C. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Dance, J. C. G. Kerr, H. W. Speir, R. M.
Deedes, W. F. Kershaw, J. A. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kimball, M. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lambert, Hon. G. Stevens, Geoffrey
Doughty, C. J. A. Lambton, Viscount Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Drayson, G. B. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
du Cann, E. D. L. Langford-Holt, J. A. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Leavey, J. A. Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn) Leburn, W. G. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Errington, Sir Eric Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Teeling, W.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Fell, A. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Finlay, Graeme Linstead, Sir H. N. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Fisher, Nigel Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Freeth, D. K. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Gibson-Watt, D. Macdonald, Sir Peter Touche, Sir Gordon
Glover, D. McKibbin, A. J. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Gower, H. R. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Vane, W. M. F. Wall, Major Patrick Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Vickers, Miss J. H. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. Wood, Hon. R.
Vosper, D. F. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Webbe, Sir H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker-Smith, D. C. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mr. Godber.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Albu, A. H. Hamilton, W. W. Palmer, A. M. F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hannan, W. Pargiter, G. A.
Anderson, Frank Hastings, S. Paton, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hayman, F. H. Pearson, A.
Bartley, P. Healey, Denis Peart, T. F.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Benson, G. Herbison, Miss M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Beswick, F. Hobson, C. R. Probert, A. R.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Holman, P. Proctor, W. T.
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Randall, H. E.
Blenkinsop, A. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Rankin, John
Blyton, W. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Boardman, H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reeves, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hunter, A. E. Reid, William
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boyd, T. C. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Janner, B. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brockway, A. F. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Ross, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Johnson, James (Rugby) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, Rt. Hon. 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) Skeffington, A. M.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J. Lewis, Arthur Sorensen, R. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lindgren, G. S. Sparks, J. A.
Champion, A. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Chetwynd, G. R. Logan, D. G. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) MacColl, J. E. Stones, W. (Consett)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) McGhee, H. G. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Cove, W. G. McKay, John (Wallsend) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McLeavy, Frank Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Cronin, J. D. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Sylvester, G. O.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Mahon, Simon Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Dear, G. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Thornton, E.
Delargy, H. J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N. Mason, Roy Warbey, W. N.
Donnelly, D. L. Mellish, R. J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Messer, Sir F. Wells, William (Wa'sall, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mitchison, G. R. West, D. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Monslow, W. Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Moody, A. S. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Moss, R. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Fernyhough, E. Moyle, A. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Gibson, C. W. Oliver, G. H. Woof, R. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oram, A. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Greenwood, Anthony Orbach, M. Zilliacus, K.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Oswald, T.
Grey, C. F. Owen, W. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Padley, W. E. Mr. Short and Mr. Simmons.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)