§
Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 13, at end insert new Clause A:
This Part of this Act shall come into force on the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment provides that Part II of the Bill, dealing with the resale price maintenance side, shall come into force on the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of the Act. This new provision, which will, as it were, defer the coming into operation of that Part of the Bill, was foreshadowed in the speech which I made at the conclusion of our former proceedings in the House on the Third Reading of the Bill. The object is to allow manufacturers who have hitherto relied upon collective methods of enforcing resale price conditions, which, whatever some hon. Gentlemen may think about them, have been perfectly legal up to date, a short period in which to adjust their contracts and conditions of sale to take account of the provisions of Part II.
977 We recognise that manufacturers may require a breathing space in which to adjust their arrangements and also to study the provisions of the extension of individual resale price maintenance accorded to them by the Bill. So, on the assumption that the Bill becomes law in the immediate future, because this is the final Parliamentary stage of the Measure, Part II of the Bill will, on that timetable, come into operation in November next. The rest of the Bill, with one minor qualification in relation to the Commission, will come into force straight away.
Perhaps I might add one other point which may arouse a chord of sympathy among hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. It is that the Act will come into force right at the beginning of the Long Vacation in the law, and it will make it less easy for companies concerned to get the expert advice that they ought to have in regard to the arrangements for collective enforcement which they now have in operation and to enable them to make proper arrangements to conform in every respect, in the letter and in the spirit, with the law as it will be after the coming into force of the Measure.
§ Mr. JayMy hon. Friends and I do not agree with the Amendment. Indeed, we think it shows how right we were in being sceptical from the very beginning of the Bill about the reality of the ban on collective resale price maintenance which the Government claim to be introducing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was necessary to enable firms to adjust their arrangements during the interregnum, which has now become "a breathing space" as we have proceeded with the Bill. We fear that all that really means is that the arrangements for collective resale price maintenance will disappear in that form and reappear in the form of individual resale price maintenance enforced by means of the next Clause and no doubt operated with the assistance and advice of trade associations and other bodies.
From the start of the Bill we have said that the ban on collective price resale maintenance was only partial, and the Parliamentary Secretary was very scornful about our arguments on the subject. The Bill prohibits collective enforcement 978 of resale price maintenance by collective boycott, but it enables traders at the same time to enforce their resale prices individually by means of the next Clause. We have pointed out from the beginning that it is possible for traders, individually but simultaneously, to enforce their resale prices in that fashion.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that at an early stage we asked whether it would be possible for the rules of a trade association to lay down that its members should use the next Clause for the purpose of individual resale price maintenance. We were told in return that if they did that, it would be a registrable agreement for the purposes of the Bill. That is perfectly true, but of course it would not be banned. It would perhaps be registered when called by the Board of Trade and perhaps examined by the Court, but unless and until it was declared by the Court to be contrary to the public interest that practice could continue.
6.30 p.m.
Over and above that, even if the practice of an association thereby in its rules enforcing individual resale price maintenance on its members were declared to be not in the public interest, it would still be possible, as I understand it—and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will deny this—thereafter for a trade association, without having any written rules or explicit arrangements of any kind, to advise each of its members individually how to operate the Clause which makes individual retail price maintenance enforceable. That is obviously the intention of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris)—quite reasonably from his point of view. He made clear earlier in our debates that what he wants is a situation in which, after the Bill is passed, it will be possible for each trader who was previously operating collective retail price maintenance in a group to operate it individually, with the legal enforcement of the Bill and on the advice of the trade association of which he is a member.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth will deny that that is exactly what he wants to happen, and it is one of the reasons why he was forthright in proposing an Amendment to that end in our earlier discussions of the 979 Bill. He was not successful in having that Amendment agreed to, but the Government have allowed themselves to be pressured by vested interests into swallowing it in another place.
There will be little advantage in the matter of resale price maintenance after the Bill is passed, in spite of all this elaborate apparatus of legislation and banning and the rest of it. The housewife and other consumers will pay exactly the same prices as they did before. Prices will be enforced equally effectively, only they will be enforced by law instead of being enforced by the threat of a collective boycott. All the individual traders who are thereby enforcing them will know perfectly well what the others are doing and that the others are acting in the same way. Each of them will be able to do so perfectly legally and to get identical advice from the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, or his corresponding colleagues in other parts of industry.
It seems to us, putting the matter briefly, that the ban is therefore shown up as largely a sham and a fraud on the public. There is very little left of the ban on collective resale price maintenance. The fact that the Government have accepted the Amendment shows that we were always right in saying that the only ban which the Bill purports to impose on industry at all, the only outright legal prohibition, is worth very little indeed.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI do not intend to delay the House by re-entering the debate on this subject with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay.) I could not help thinking, as I heard him speaking just now, that this was about where we came in and that this was the sort of thing which he was saying in the Second Reading debate. It was in the same speech when he said that it would take a hundred years to get the Part I agreements registered and brought before the Court. As we are now to register them within three months, the margin of error in the estimations of the right hon. Gentleman will be seen to be very significant indeed—
§ Mr. Walker-SmithIf I may reach a semi-colon—and the House would be well advised to measure the margin of error in the very extravagant statements which 980 the right hon. Gentleman has just made about the effect of this administratively convenient and fair but not very vital Amendment by relating it to the error with which he concluded the prophecy of the timetable in the Second Reading debate.
§ Mr. JayDoes the Parliamentary Secretary intend to give us the exceedingly important assurance that the Board of Trade will call for registration, within three months of the passage of the Bill, of all agreements which are registrable under the Bill?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe right hon. Gentleman is making a confusion between the passage of the Bill and the Order. The Bill will come into force as soon as it gets the Royal Assent. Apart from the Part with which we are now dealing and a small provision in regard to the Monopolies Commission the Bill will come into operation as soon as it receives the Royal Assent. The Order about registration requires the approval of Parliament and, as my right hon. Friend has explained, will not be available until the autumn, and it is the three months from then in which we design to get the registration of these restrictive agreements.
However, that is a little wide of the matter which we are now discussing, which has nothing to do with Part I registrable agreements. We are here dealing with Part II of the Bill, the enforcement of resale price maintenance.
§ Mr. JayI said on Second Reading that it might be a hundred years before the Restrictive Practices Court pronounced on all the agreements registrable under the Bill. The hon. and learned Member says that I am confusing a hundred years with three months. Does he mean that he is now giving us an assurance that within three months of the passing of the Bill all the agreements registrable under the Bill will be called for by the Board of Trade? If not, what does he mean?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe timetable of events, if I am in order in referring to it—
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member is not in order, because the Amendment does not include all the 981 Orders and Regulations provided for in the Bill, and we should stick to the precise Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithWith respect, Sir, your ruling was not entirely unexpected, and I felt I should not be led further astray by the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to distract attention from the weakness and extravagance of the argument which he made about Part II of the Bill. On that I will content myself with saying, as we have argued the subject over so many times, that collective enforcement is dealt with in the Bill in an effective way for the first time in the history of this country. The fact that this short period is given, out of fairness to those who have hitherto carried on what has been a perfectly legal practice, will in no way derogate from the effectiveness of the Bill, and in no way justifies one tithe of the extravagance of the language which the right hon. Gentleman used in referring to it.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsI do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in any way used extravagant language. He put his finger on the essential and perhaps intentional weakness of the Bill. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that on this subject the Government are putting a shabby deal over the House. The Government have contended throughout that they are genuine about the Bill and want to do away with monopolies and want to do away with the impositions which have been put upon the public by collective agreements relating to resale price maintenance dealings and so forth.
What will happen here under the proposed Amendment—and I agree with my right hon. Friend that it seems to be quite manifest—is that instead of the purpose of this Bill being carried out at once, and agreements that it affects being registered and exposed at once, a period of no less than three months is being given in order that these people who have collective agreements referred to in the Bill may put their house in order.
I put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he really believe that all these people who have been operating under collective agreements will be foolish enough to sit down and wait until the three months allowed by the Amendment have expired and then get caught by 982 proceedings in the courts, when it is the simplest thing in the world to get rid of the collective agreements and to introduce individual agreements on which they will not be caught by this Bill at all? That is the gravamen of the objection to this Amendment. By one simple blow, by these three lines, there can be vitiated the whole of the rest of the provisions in the Bill.
I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how it comes about, if what I am saying about the effect of the Amendment is correct and fair, that the Government refused to accept the Amendment when it was previously before us. If my recollection is correct, the Government then made it perfectly clear that they were not prepared to accept this Amendment for the very reason which was then stated, and which I have now repealed, that it would have the effect of vitiating the whole of the rest of the provisions of the Bill. If that was right then, why is it not right now? If that was then regarded as such a defect, a stigma and a weakness in the Bill as it was previously introduced here, why is that not similarly the case now? How comes it that merely because belatedly another place has made this Amendment it becomes any more virtuous or acceptable than it was before?
Of course, the truth is that there has been passed in another place what was here rejected because it was recognised that to have this provision would be entirely wrong and would nullify the real effectiveness of the Bill. That is why I say it is a shabby proceeding on the part of the Government to invite the House to accept this Amendment now when it was emphatically refused previously.
§ Mr. Reader Harris (Heston and Isleworth)The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. There was no seconder to the original Amendment.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsThe hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) proposed the Amendment originally, and he could not even get a seconder. The Government would have nothing to do with it. Having been completely unable to do anything with it in this House its sponsors had the matter raised in another place where it was passed and sent here. Not only does it not now need a seconder, but the Government are prepared 983 to accept this Amendment holus-bolus, and the effect which it will have on the Bill. I say that that is wrong and a thoroughly shabby proceeding to inflict upon the House.
By way of justification the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with collective enforcement. Of course there are, but what is the good of them when an opportunity is given to the people who have these collective agreements to do away with them and thus render completely redundant the provisions regarding collective enforcement? As I have said, these people will not sit down and wait for three months until they are caught. They will transmute the collective agreements into individual agreements, and thereupon they will be outside the provisions of the Bill altogether; and all the work which has been done in this House, and all the pretence from the Government about the purpose and sincerity of this Bill will be nullified and go by the board.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. E. FletcherI wish to make my own position clear on this matter. I deplore the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that we should adopt the Amendment. Unlike my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was never happy about Clause 23 (6); it seemed to me quite anomalous that, in a part of the Bill declaring what is to be unlawful, we should go out of our way to say that no criminal proceedings should be taken against anybody doing something which this Bill makes unlawful. When we were considering subsection (6) it seemed to me that there was a strong case for omitting it. Nevertheless, on that point I deferred to the view taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I mention it now only in order to emphasise the seriousness of this Amendment.
To take a reasonable analogy, in this Part of the Bill we are laying down what should be unlawful and what, but for Section 23 (6), would be a criminal offence. It seems to me illogical and inconsistent to say that people may commit a crime for the next thre months, but afterwards they must stop. That is the effect of this Amendment. People may go on breaking the law with impugnity for three months, but after that they can be punished. That is so incontrovertible that it scarcely bears 984 repetition, but I think that the analogy is complete.
I am sure it will be appreciated that in this whole field of anti-monopoly legislation we are in the realms of jurisprudence. We are in an indefinable and debatable area between the criminal and civil law. The only other country which has to any great extent given legislative thought to anti-trust provisions and anti-monopoly provisions is the United States of America. There the anti-trust laws partake of the nature of criminal laws—I have always thought rightly—and that is the strength of the American jurisprudence on the subject. In this Bill, in Part II, at the suggestion of the Government, we are deliberately not going to that length. We are content to make monopolistic offences offences against the civil law and not against the criminal law. We are introducing civil remedies and not criminal remedies.
That does not, however, in any way alter the nature of the momentous change in legislative arrangements which will be introduced as a result of this Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that precisely the same arguments apply. If we are proposing to make something unlawful, it should be unlawful as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is absurd to say that people may go on breaking the law for three months. That seems to be an invitation to them to defy Parliament.
§ Mr. R. HarrisBut they will not be breaking the law.
§ Mr. FletcherIt is very difficult to deal with interventions made by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. But so far as I understood him, what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) said was that they will not be breaking the law. But of course they will; they will be doing something which Parliament says will be unlawful, which this House has laid down should be unlawful, and which would have been unlawful from the moment the Bill received the Royal Assent if it were not for an Amendment introduced in another place providing expressly that people can go on defying the law of the land for three months.
§ This Amendment seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I find it very difficult to understand the effrontery with 985 which the Parliamentary Secretary, at the instance of another place, can ask this House to go back upon what it has solemnly decided should become the law of the land. He is asking us to say that what he wants to be the law of the land can be defied with impunity and without any redress at all. That is an invitation to people to break the law and do things which we do not want them to do, such as cover up agreements which should be exposed. That is a most reprehensible and reactionary step.
§ I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary really has very much discretion in this matter. No senior Member of the Government is present. There is no Cabinet Minister to help the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a matter which requires the most profound attention of the Government, because they are inviting the House, at the behest of another place, to go back upon what it has decided after very careful and prolonged thought and debate. I hope either that the Parliamentary Secretary will not press the Amendment or, if he does, that it will be defeated.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI should like very briefly to comment upon the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels.) The only new point which they made was the suggestion that we are here giving effect to an Amendment disapproved by the House and now commended to us by another place. With great respect to both hon. Members, that is a travesty of the facts, due, I am sure, to the length of time which has elapsed since the occasion, and to the imperfections of the human memory. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) had put down an Amendment to give effect to this proposal. By some unfortunate accident the hon. Member who was going to second the Amendment was not present in the Chamber and my hon. Friend was not able to move it. Had he moved it, my right hon. Friend would certainly have been prepared to accept it in principle.
In regard to the attitude of another place, if the hon. and learned Member would be kind enough to look at col. 902 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th June he will see that I gave notice of this proposal 986 in this House. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that this proposal has been conceived only in another place, and that it is in any way contrary to the intention which the Government formed when the Bill was previously before the House.
§ Sir L. Ungoed-ThomasThe Parliamentary Secretary's replies have been wholly unsatisfactory. We have had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a full and detailed explanation of the reasons why we are opposed to the Amendment. So far from having the courtesy of a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary we have had a purely debating speech upon irrelevant matters, in respect of which he was eventually brought to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the substance of our objections. In Clause 23 we have a prohibition of the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance. That practice, with its paraphernalia of secret courts and the rest, has been condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least by the President of the Board of Trade himself. Why, then, should it be allowed to continue for an extra three months? What is the object of that?
We are not here dealing with the administrative convenience of registering agreements and providing opportunities for agreements to be rescinded, thereby avoiding a cluttering up of the register. We have here a straight prohibition of a most objectionable practice, condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yet the Government are to allow an additional three months in which this very practice is to be allowed to continue.
The other Clause in respect of which the Amendment gives three months' grace is Clause 24, which deals with the individual enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. That should come into operation at once. The agreements which are enforceable are not those which have to be made after the date of the Measure coming into operation; they can apply now to conditions which are made between the supplier and the retailer. Why should not they come into operation at once? What is the point of this omnibus Amendment applying both to collective and individual enforcement of resale price maintenance? Why should they be coupled together in the same provision 987 relating to the date at which they are to come into operation?
The reason is quite obvious. It is because the individual enforcement of resale price maintenance will be used for what are, in effect, collective agreements. That is the whole purpose behind the Amendment to which the Government have succumbed. It was not in the Bill originally. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government did not accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend because there was no seconder. In saying that the hon. and learned Member shows a quite staggering innocence of Front Bench influence and Parliamentary procedure, and what can be done in the House.
That is the trouble with the Bill. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we have completed the circle. This is where we came in. Our charge against the Bill during the Second Reading debate was that a great deal of it was "phoney"—simply window dressing—
§ and the Amendment which we are now considering certainly lends colour to that charge. We have completed the circle, which is a vicious circle, and one against which we shall vote.
§ Mr. WadeI want to make a very brief observation on behalf of those, who, like myself, are uneasy about Clause 24 but, on the other hand, welcome Clause 23. We are in some difficulty. We are in no hurry to see Clause 24 brought into effect. On the other hand, we believe that Clause 23 should be brought into effect straight away. On balance I regard Clause 23 as the more important, and I think that the Government would create an unfortunate impression if they deferred the implementation of that Part of the Bill. My view, which is shared by my colleagues, is that the Amendment should not be accepted.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 178.
991| Division No. 274.] | AYES | [6.59 p.m. |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Currie, G. B. H. | Hay, John |
| Aitken, W. T. | Dance, J. C. G. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel |
| Allan, R, A. (Paddington, S.) | Davidson, Viscountess | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Deedes, W. F. | Hill, Rt. Hon, Charles (Luton) |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Drayson, G. B. | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) |
| Arbuthnot, John | du Cann, E. D. L. | Holland-Martin, C. J. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Hope, Lord John |
| Ashton, H. | Duncan, Capt. J. A. L, | Hornby, R. P. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn) | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. |
| Balniel, Lord | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence |
| Barlow, Sir John | Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) |
| Barter, John | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Errington, Sir Eric | Hulbert, Sir Norman |
| Beamish, MaJ. Tufton | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Fell, A. | Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Finlay, Graeme | Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. |
| Bennett, R. M. (Torquay) | Fisher, Nigel | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Bidgood, J. C. | Fort, R. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) |
| Biggs-Davison, J. A. | Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Freeth, D. K. | Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Black, C. W. | Gibson-Watt, D. | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Body, R. F. | Glover, D. | Kerr, H. W. |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Godber, J. B. | Kershaw, J. A. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan | Kimball, M. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Gower, H. R. | Kirk, P. M. |
| Braine, B. R. | Graham, Sir Fergus | Lambert, Hon. G. |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Grant, W. (Woodside) | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Brooman-White, R. C | Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich) | Langford-Holt, J. A. |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Green, A. | Leather, E. H. C. |
| Bryan, P. | Gresham Cooke, R. | Leavey, J. A. |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) |
| Channon, H. | Gurden, Harod | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Linstead, Sir H. N. | |
| Cole, Norman | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Cooper, A. E. | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Longden, Gilbert |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) |
| Corfield, Capt. P. V. | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Crouch, R. F. | Harvie-Watt, Sir George | McKibbin, A. J. |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Pitman, I. J. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| McLaughlin, Mrs. P. | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) | Pott, H. P. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Powell, J. Enoch | Teeling, W. |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Profumo, J. D. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Maddan, Martin | Raikes, Sir Victor | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Ramsden, J. E. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Redmayne, M. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Markham, Major Sir Frank | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P. |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Remnant, Hon. P. | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Maude, Angus | Renton, D. L. M. | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. | Ridsdale, J. E. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Mawby, R. L. | Rippon, A. G. F. | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Medlicott, Sir Frank | Robertson, Sir David | Vickers, Miss J. H. |
| Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Roper, Sir Harold | Walker-Smith, D. C. |
| Nabarro, G. D. N. | Russell, R. S. | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Nairn, D. L. S. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Neave, Airey | Sharples, R. C. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Nicholls, Harmar | Shepherd, William | Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border) |
| Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Nugent, G. R. H. | Spearman, Sir Alexander | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Speir, R. M. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. | Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.) | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Osborne, C. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | |
| Page, R. G. | Stevens, Geoffrey | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) | Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young. |
| Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | Mason, Roy |
| Albu, A. H. | Gibson, C. W. | Mellish, R. J. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Greenwood, Anthony | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Anderson, Frank | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Monslow, W. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Grey, C. F. | Mort, D. L. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Moss, R. |
| Balfour, A. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Moyle, A. |
| Beswick, F. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mulley, F. W. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hamilton, W. W. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hayman, F. H. | Oliver, G. H. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Healey, Denis | Oram, A. E. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) | Orbach, M. |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | Hobson, C. R. | Oswald, T. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Holman, P. | Owen, W. J. |
| Boyd, T, C. | Holmes, Horace | Paget, R. T. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Holt, A. F. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Brockway, A. F. | Howell, Denis (All Saints) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Burke, W. A. | Hunter, A. E. | Parkin, B. T. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Paton, John |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Pearson, A. |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Peart, T. F. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Irving, S. (Dartford) | Popplewell, E. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Champion, A. J. | Janner, B. | Proctor, W. T. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Pryde, D. J. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Rankin, John |
| Coldrick, W. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Daines, P. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E) | Kenyon, C. | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Shurmer, P. L. E. |
| Delargy, H. J. | King, Dr. H. M. | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Dodds, N. N. | Lawson, G. M. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Donnelly, D. L. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Dye, S. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly) | Logan, D. G. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | MacColl, J. E. | Smith, Eillis (Stoke, S.) |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | McInnes, J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) | McLeavy, Frank | Steele, T. |
| Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mahon, Simon | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Finch, H. J. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) | Weitzman, D. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Tomney, F. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Turner-Samuels, M. | Wheeldon, W. E. | Williams, W. T. (Barons Court) |
| Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Usborne, H. C. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Viant, S. P. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. | Woof, R. E. |
| Wade, D. W. | Wilkins, W. A. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Warbey, W. N. | Willey, Frederick | |
| Watkins, T. E. | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Short and Mr. Deer. |
Question put and agreed to.