HC Deb 14 June 1956 vol 554 cc807-35
Mr. Jay

I beg to move, in page 20, line 32, to leave out from the first "Commission" to the end of the Clause.

This Amendment would substantially reverse the decision of the Government heavily to curtail the powers of the Monopolies Commission. We think that that decision is wrong. We believe that even if we accept the rest of the structure of this Bill—the Restrictive Practices Court and the rest—at the same time there is valuable work which the Monopolies Commission could continue to do. We think that the Commission has already made very great and important contributions to the whole question of monopolies and restrictive practices policy, and we wish to see it continuing to exercise a wider jurisdiction and greater authority than the Government intend to give it.

As the Bill stands, the work of the Monopolies Commission henceforth will be very largely confined to considering the position of the outright monopolies or near-monopolies, what the Government call interconnected bodies corporate, as they are also styled by the Bill. If that is all the Commission is to have to do it will not have a full-time job, or a job worthy of its capacities. Several times I have asked the Government what they think the Commission is to recommend when it is faced with one of the monopoly or near-monopoly giants in British industry. I raised this point partly on the Report of the Commission on the match industry.

It seems to me that there are substantially only two proposals which the Commission can make when faced with these great one-firm combines. One is that there should be publicly enforced price control, which the Commission recommended in the case of the match industry, and the other possible solution is public ownership. Since the party opposite is doctrinally inhibited against both those solutions, as we found in the case of the match industry, I cannot see what substantially useful purpose will be served by the Commission investigating those industries and making recommendations along these lines. Therefore, it seems to us that it should be given something else to do.

In view of the time, I shall make only two suggestions of the sort of thing which it seems to us the Commission might do, even given the construction of this Bill. Yesterday we discussed the problem of contracts of sale. The President, I think very plausibly, argued that it would not be possible to burden the Registrar with a record of every contract of sale in the country. On the other hand, he admitted that in the case of the great petrol companies obtaining control by sole agency agreements of a large section of the distributive organisation for petrol in the country—which might be even more important if the American industry is to get control of a larger section of the retail organisation—there might be a case for public intervention.

As the Bill stands, it seems impossible to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable action of that kind. I should have thought that the Commission could go into the position. It might find in the case of the oil companies that there was good reason for Government intervention, whereas in other cases of agency agreements it was not necessary to make an intervention. That is only one example of the sort of thing the Commission might do.

I mention one other possibility which has occurred to me. Would it be possible to ask the Commission—perhaps not immediately after the passing of this Bill, but at a slightly later period, while the whole of the rest of the procedure of the Court and the Registrar is going on—to review the whole working of the new system, and to see whether, at that slightly later stage, it could recommend a group of the worst sort of restrictive practices for a general prohibition in a later Bill, such as we would have preferred to see in the Bill now before us?

In its Report on collective discrimination last year, the Commission had before it rather limited terms of reference. It proposed that all the practices which it examined should be generally prohibited, and the criticism was made that it was examining only one part of the field and there might conceivably be practices outside that field which should be condemned. It seems possible that at a later stage it might be desirable to ask the Commission to look at the whole field in the light of some decision reached, and to see whether a stage had been reached at which there might be a general prohibition.

I am putting these points forward, not as considered proposals, but as examples of the kind of useful work which we think the Commission might do. All we say emphatically at this stage is that if this Government or any other wanted the Commission to do that at a later stage it would be impossible for the Commission to enter into inquiries and work of that kind. If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that under the present Bill either of those types of inquiry of a general or a particular kind would be possible, so far we should be comforted, but we still think it would be far wiser to keep the Commission in being in its present form, so that it might be able to undertake either that kind of inquiry or other work which we may not now have thought of, but which would be highly desirable in the public interest.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the first three Amendments on the next page of the Notice Paper:

In page 21, line 24, at the end to insert: but not before the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed". In line 25, to leave out subsection (1); and in line 41, to leave out subsection (3).

If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) desires to have a Division on his Amendment in line 24, he may do so.

Mr. G. Darling

I beg to second the Amendment.

The proposal implicit in the Bill to emasculate the Monopolies Commission has given us much cause for alarm. Frequently during the debates, when we have wanted to extend the scope of the Bill to deal with restrictive practices which we thought ought to be dealt with, the President of the Board of Trade has told us that the scope of the Bill is limited. He has frequently said that it deals only with collective restrictive practices. On the ground that the Bill is restricted, the right hon. Gentleman has turned aside and defeated proposals which we have made for extending its scope.

In other words, there are a number of restrictive practices in this country outside the scope of the Bill, and we say, I think logically and rightly, that restrictive practices in this country should be dealt with, whether they come within the scope of the Bill or not. If they cannot be dealt with by the court procedure prescribed here, they should be dealt with in some other way. In effect, the only other way we have of dealing with them is through examination, inquiry and report by the Monopolies Commission, and action following its report.

The right hon. Gentleman has also said during the course of our discussions—indeed, it has been said from both sides of the House—that to a very large extent the Bill is an experiment, in the sense that we do not know the full range of restrictive practices with which it will have to deal. At the moment, nobody in this country knows how many restrictive practices are in operation. We do not know how many practices which are operated at present by the trade associations in this country will be dealt with and made unlawful under the Bill. Not only do we not know the number and full extent of their operations over our economy, but we do not know, and will not know for a considerable time, whether all those practices which we think ought to be dealt with by the Court because of their apparently collective character, will in fact be dealt with by the court.

There are numerous loopholes in the Bill. We think the Bill is very weak in Clause 16. We have seen the help which will be given to trade associations by the legal profession, and we believe—we may be wrong—that, with the help of astute lawyers, there are a great number of restrictive practices which, in our view as laymen, ought to be dealt with, which will escape the court procedure and continue to be operated.

Apart from that, there remains the unknown size of the range of restrictive practices still in operation. Yet the Government suggest at this stage, with our lack of knowledge and ignorance of the true situation, that the only other body which can deal with these matters—the Monopolies Commission—should be emasculated. They suggest that the number of people on the Commission should be reduced and that the scope of its activities should be restricted by comparison with the present scope.

Just because we do not know what the situation is, it seems to us that if our intention is to get rid of restrictive practices in this country, this is a very peculiar way of setting about it. By emasculating the Commission we are making certain that many restrictive practices which are outside the scope of the Bill will be permitted to continue, because the Monopolies Commission will not be able to deal with them.

A wide range of them remain. In moving the Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned some examples, and asked the Parliamentary Secretary questions. We are bound to mention the petrol companies; they have been mentioned frequently in the discussions, for they provide an easy example. One of the reasons why we continue to mention the petrol companies is that this is an example which has come out into the open. There may be many more examples of the same kind going on, but we do not know about them; they have not been examined. One of the reasons why they have not been examined is that not all the customers' complaints about restrictive practices have been sent to the Monopolies Commission for examination. If we are restricted in the examples which we give, the reason is that we do not know the full extent of the restrictive practices.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement this afternoon that the Shell and B.P. group was handling 60 per cent. of the petrol trade of this country. In view of the fact that that group goes in for one kind of restrictive practice at least, the tied garage business, I should have thought that the Shell and B.P. group ought to be examined by the Commission. I am not singling that group out; I think that the operations of all petrol companies ought at some time to be examined by the Commission.

There are single-firm monopolies which we know exist and which are outside the scope of the Bill. For instance, there are the activities of such groups as Unilever, about which it might well be argued that none of Unilever's activities, except perhaps the margarine business—I do not know—represents one-third or more than one-third of the trade in those activities. It may well be argued that these do not come within the purview of the Commission. I do not know. I am making no complaint against the Unilever group; I do not know whether its practices are or are not in the public interest. I simply say that we ought not to continue to run our economy in a state of ignorance, and that we ought to know how these big combines operate.

All I am pleading for here is that we should strengthen the Monopolies Commission in order that it can become a truly responsible and permanent fact-finding body, so that we and everybody else in the community concerned with industry, trade and economic matters will know precisely how these big concerns operate, whether they are in the public interest and whether or not they are doing things which ought to be stopped.

Surely there is no harm in finding what the facts are. One of the reasons why we frequently get into economic and industrial troubles in this country is that we do not know the facts when we deal with issues which arise; and we do not know the facts because we have not a properly established fact-finding body which can be given the job of getting us the information which we need for the purpose of directing economic policy. In the present circumstances, when everybody admits that Britain's economic position in the world is not very good and that we face great difficulties, it seems to me retrogressive to weaken or get rid of a fact-finding body which may be of great value to us.

There is another aspect of the matter which disturbs me. The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), a few moments ago, tried to move an Amendment because he thought it desirable that trade associations should have a few months in which to work out what they should do, when the Bill becomes an Act, to put their affairs in order. I imagine from his remarks that he wants to make sure that the trade association with which he is concerned adjusts its operations to suit the terms of the Act. He wants to get within the law. I am sure that that is his intention, and applaud him for wanting to do that. There are, however, other trade associations which we believe will employ legal advice, not for that purpose, but to find out how they can adjust their operations, keep within the law and still get the same results. They might set up interconnected bodies corporate or perhaps agree to have single-firm activities so that they can escape the Act, although the activities of the single firm, with a few variations, will be similar to the present activities.

When that development occurs we might find that quite a number of trade associations that have been running collective restrictive practices will escape the law. Though their operations will still be the same in effect, they will escape the Act, and if that happens on any scale it is quite obvious that we shall need a fact-finding body to see just what is going on in that field. I do not know how many interconnected bodies corporate will be set up to escape this Bill when it becomes law, or how many partnerships will be formed for that purpose. The number may be large. If it is, we obviously want a fact-finding body, the need for which will become more urgent as time goes on.

I would suggest that, having taken this step to deal with collective restrictive practices, we ought to go along on a broad front to get as much information as we possibly can about the whole of the industrial and commercial activities of the country. The need for secrecy in business has disappeared long ago. There is need for secrecy, perhaps, in protecting patents, etc., but secrecy anywhere as to business operations, financial investments, trading arrangements and the like is a handicap to the development of our economy. We need a fact-finding body —our whole economic system requires it. In those circumstances, to emasculate the only fact-finding body that we have is in my view totally regressive, and I therefore urge the Government to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. Holt

I should like later to move the Amendment in page 21, line 24, standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I understood from what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we should discuss it now, although we may move it after this Amendment has been dealt with.

As I see the Parliamentary Secretary sitting there with a confident. friendly smile on his face, I am hopeful that, perhaps, after all the discussion that has taken place on this subject during the Committee stage, the Government have now recognised the strength of the case that was put, and are more conscious of the importance of retaining a critical attitude in the mind of the public, and a critical outlook on competition by the whole nation. It seems to me that at this juncture, when we do not really know—when even the Government cannot really say for certain—what is to happen when so many cases come before this new Court, it is important that we should allow the new Monopolies Commission to function both energetically and widely, and that we should have a number of reports constantly coming before the public to keep up this critical outlook on everything that industry is doing which in one way or another may be limiting competition.

Although I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), with much of which I agree, and in that of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), I really think that there is quite enough for the Commission to do in just looking at monopolies for the time being, without having to go into new kinds of practices to which this House has not yet given a great deal of thought. I should have thought that if the Government were really serious about trying to get a free economy to work in modern and very complicated conditions, and in a country where monopolies and quasi-monopolies have already spread to a considerable extent, they would have thought it vital to have the closest look at a whole number of these concerns which are now operating.

5.45 p.m.

There are many views about this. Some people automatically consider monopolies bad. The official Opposition would wish to nationalise many of them. Even amongst those who would prefer a free economy different views are held about them. It is important at this stage that we should have a searchlight on many of the monopolies that are now operating. It may be that some of them will come out of investigation with flying colours and will be found to be doing a public service; that there is something natural in the structure which has grown up and which should not be upset. On the other hand, some may be quite undesirable.

Be that as it may, it hardly seems the moment to cut down the Commission in view of the change which will come about when the Bill is enacted and before these monopolies have not been examined. I hope, therefore, that when we move our Amendment, the object of which is merely to delay the operation of this Clause for three years while we see how things are developing and in the meantime to keep up pressure on industry, the Government will be ready to accept it.

Mr. Walker-Smith

The question of the future of the Monopolies Commission has already received some attention from the House and we did exchange some views about it in earlier proceedings on the Bill. The hon. Member for Hillsborough Mr. G. Darling), who made certain suggestions on the previous occasion, has returned to the attack and has two or three times referred to the unwisdom and inadvisability of what he calls emasculating the Commission. This is a vivid and, indeed, a suggestive metaphor, but I suggest, with respect, that it is not the right description of what the future of the Monopolies Commission will be.

What we are seeking to do is to retain the Commission to serve a useful and necessary purpose in the interests of the community and, at the same time, to make it quite clear that the functions of the Commission are distinct—as in logic and by every principle of good administration they should be—from those of the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. G. Darling

If the Parliamentary Secretary reduces anything from 25 to 10, that is emasculation.

Mr. Walker-Smith

No, it is not my understanding of the term. I have always understood that the process envisaged by the metaphorical description is absolute and is not a relative or qualitative one. It is for that reason that I am dissenting from this rather vivid metaphor, which, I again submit, is exaggerated in its context. In fact, the Monopolies Commission will go on in full strength and activity, albeit, as we made quite plain in Committee, in a more limited field.

We are actuated by the principle of seeking to make a proper and logical apportionment between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission, based on assigning to that Court those issues which are properly justiciable, and retaining or giving to the Commission those matters which are, of their nature, more administrative or inquisitorial. That has led us to the assignment of function which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) defined a little incompletely, because, in addition to the monopolies of scale, he will recall that the Commission is also to have, under Clause 25 of the Bill, pure export agreements. It will be concerned with both those matters.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough said, quite fairly and properly, that there are restrictive practices outside the registrable ones under Part I of the Bill. Of course there are, but our intention and effort in the Bill has been to see that all restrictive practices come under some procedure or another. There are, in fact, three main methods of dealing with these restrictive practices—the Court, which has the register of agreements under Part I of the Bill, the Monopolies Commission, which has monopolies of scale and export agreements under Part III, and then, under Part II, there is a total statutory prohibition under which falls the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance, which is a very large and important part of restrictive practices as at present exercised.

Thus, albeit it is true to say that there are restrictive practices other than those which go to the Court, it is not, in my submission, right to say that there are any restrictive practices for which the Bill does not provide a proper or sufficient remedy. That is, at least, our intention, and so far, no hon. Member has been able to spell out any restrictive practice which he can suggest does not come within some remedy in the Bill.

Mr. Jay

Did not the President of the Board of Trade admit yesterday that the sole agency agreements of the petrol companies were altogether outside the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I was coming to the point about sole agencies; it was, I think, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, and certainly by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. Sole agencies, if limited to two parties, are, it is true, outside the Bill; but they are only outside the overall system of remedies if they are not also monopolies of scale within the definition in Section 3 of the 1948 Act.

I do not want to canvass individual cases in the House, because I do not think that it is either rewarding or altogether right so to do; but I must just point out that, of course, the prime instance brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough is not only a sole agency but it is, on the figures which he gave, within the ambit of the existing law, because it satisfies the conditions in subsection (1, a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1948. So that that does not derogate from the principle which I enunciated, that these matters do come, if not necessarily within Part I of the Bill, within the general pattern of the defences against restrictive practices.

Mr. Jay

If, as the Chancellor told us today, Shell and B.P., which are separate companies, joined together to form a distribution company, and that distribution subsidiary controlled 60 per cent. of the distribution in the country, would the distribution operation come within the 1948 Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith

It would, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) would agree, be quite wrong for me to essay opinions on individual cases off the cuff in debate in the House. All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, is that if he has the facts, he will see the definition in subsection (1, a) of Section 3 of that Act, and will be able, with the expert and professional assistance of his hon. and learned Friend, to evolve his own answer from it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot run away from the question like that. Let us take the case of two producers and distributors, A and B. A and B control 60 per cent. of the product of something sold in this country. They form a company C, and they sell through the company C. Taking that hypothetical case, would that case be within the Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me whether that hypothetical case comes within the words of Section 3 (1, a) of the 1948 Act, which says: at least one-third of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof are supplied by or to any one person, or by or to any two or more persons, being interconnected bodies corporate, or by or to any such two … This is the subsection which defines the conditions in which the supply of goods is controlled by two or more persons, who are either interconnected bodies corporate or are two or more persons as defined in the next subsection, subsection (2) of Section 3. That subsection says: The two or more persons referred to in subsection (1) of this Section are any two or more persons who, whether voluntarily or not, and whether by agreement or arrangement or not, so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition in connection with the production or supply of goods of the description in question".

Mr. G. Darling

The answer is "No".

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his very clear answer?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be content with thanking me, but will seek to emulate that clarity in the opinions which he gives to the House.

If we may leave the hypothetical case —and, as I say, I am reluctant to prejudice individual positions by dealing with individual cases on the basis of a hypothesis—I submit that the general pattern is a comprehensive pattern, and that, in the law as we propose it to be, the Commission and the Court will each have its proper and appropriate function to carry out.

With respect, I think that the case is over-stressed when it is suggested that there will develop all sorts of evasive techniques which will give rise to different arrangements which will somehow escape what is a comprehensive net. For example, it is suggested that concerns will come together and become single firm monopolies. But then they would run into the part of the net which is spread by the Act of 1948. It is suggested that they may make partnerships; but, as the House will recall, we have limited that possibility by the Amendment we have made to the Bill to restrict that to partnerships of individuals. As regards interconnected bodies corporate, as the House will appreciate, if that is done, it does involve a surrender of control which most companies, I think, would be loth to undertake merely for the sake of working out an evasive technique.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, made two specific suggestions of additional tasks which could be put upon the Monopolies Commission. One was the matter of sole agencies, and on that, as I say, our view is that sole agencies are not likely of themselves, merely as between two parties, to be anti-social unless they come into the monopoly category and are caught by Section 3 of the 1948 Act. His second suggestion was a very wide one, a general review of restrictive practices. It is an interesting suggestion, but I would not think that the Monopolies Commission, which is doing an investigating task, is necessarily also the right body to perform a task which, I would think, was basically a task for the Government.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said, contrary to what was said by other hon. Members, that he thought the Monopolies Commission would have enough to do with these monopolies of scale and export agreements. He very fairly stated, however, that not all monopolies are necessarily bad; they are bad only if they obtain their position by, and use it for, restriction and not by reason of efficiency.

6.0 p.m.

Where it is thought that firms satisfy the conditions of Section 3 of the 1948 Act as to monopolies of scale and that they are in restraint of trade, we would not hesitate to refer them to the Commission; but merely because a firm is a monopoly in the sense that it has one-third of the trade does not necessarily mean that it is anti-social if what it is doing is to improve the technique of production and to reflect that in the price which it gives to the consumer.

Mr. Holt

The point is that under the Clause as the Parliamentary Secretary now has it, the Commission can look at only one monopoly at a time.

Mr. Walker-Smith

If the hon. Member is suggesting that there should be a reversion to the group system to enable the Commission to conduct more investigations simultaneously, we do not think that that will be necessary in what is a more limited sphere than that in which the Monopolies Commission has so far been deploying itself, because now it will not have the registrable agreements under Part I to investigate. The House will recall that the group system was no part of the original pattern set up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1948.

We consider that the effect of continuing the Monopolies Commission in its present form would be to endanger confusion of functions with the Court and a possible clash of jurisdiction, and that if it did not do this it would be necessary to give the Commission functions of an academic and unsuitable nature which, again, would derogate from the high standing which we hope it will enjoy and the high purpose which we are sure it will observe.

Mr. Holt

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary say that it would confuse the Commission when the Commission cannot do anything without having a reference made to it by the President of the Board of Trade? Surely, it is quite within the capability of the President not to refer to the Commission things which are being taken care of by the Court.

Mr. Walker-Smith

That is why we have been careful to frame the Bill in these precise terms to avoid the possibility of that happening. If we avoid that, we do not need a larger Commission. If we enlarge the Commission, either it would be short of work or we would derogate from that high principle. Therefore, we consider that the Monopolies Commission will go forward in its new form as a smaller, more compact Commission, but one which still has a very useful function to discharge and which we are sure will discharge it in an energetic manner.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

We have had a very lame speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, and not least the answer he has given to the two interventions by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). The hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted to answer the point seriously. He has given the impression that he has become rather weary of all the processes of the Bill, has stopped applying his mind to the arguments, and is simply relying on the fact that when the Division bell rings he can carry the point by force of votes and does not have to worry whether he is defeated by force of argument.

The Parliamentary Secretary certainly has been defeated by force of argument, both inside and outside the House, on this important Amendment, which is supported in the country by opinion which is interested in the question of monopolies. It is supported even by people who are backing the Government on the main proposals of the Bill. Many people feel that this is one of the most serious loopholes. There had been hopes that the Government would meet the strong points which have been made.

All we had from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon was a repetition, with considerably less conviction, of the arguments he gave us in Committee. In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke before I did and in my speech I completely answered the case which the Government were trying to make. I did not get a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hoped that in the interval before the Report stage he would give thought to my argument and, having thought it over and realising what a reasonable and unanswerable case I had made, would meet us by the time we reached the Report stage. Instead, we have had evidence that the Parliamentary Secretary has given no real thought to the matter.

What the hon. and learned Gentleman has told us once again is the old argument that what the Government are concerned with is to avoid the overlapping of jurisdiction or of functions between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission. He has told us, in that rather flowery language we get from him from time to time, that he wants a logical apportionment of the burden and responsibility between these two bodies. When he says that all restrictive practices come under some procedure or other in the Bill, he makes not only a sweeping claim but one which is denied by all the experts on this matter.

I want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary. It really is not good enough simply to sweep this away on one side as just another Amendment to which he must make the appearance of paying some attention. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer this point specifically. Can he get up and say definitely that there are no cases which will not be covered either by Clause 5 or by the powers of the Monopolies Commission? Can he get up and say that there will be no cases that fall between the different procedures of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I know of none. If the hon. Lady knows of any, perhaps she will supply the information.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. and learned Gentleman has been told of some cases this afternoon. The moment he was given individual cases, he said, "I do not want to be drawn into a consideration of individual items." Having first made his general claim and said that nobody could puncture it by individual examples, when he was given instances he refused to argue on the individual points.

Let me give the Parliamentary Secretary one example. I gave it in Committee and I give it to him again. The enforcement of individual resale price maintenance is a restrictive practice. It does not come under Clause 5. Far from being banned under the Bill, individual resale price maintenance is given a new strength through the power of legal enforcement. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not worried about that, all sorts of other people who have given serious thought to the problem are worried about it, and not least the Economist. When I quoted this in Committee, I did not get an answer. Perhaps I can get an answer today.

It was the Economist, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, has been very fair and helpful to the Government on the whole of the Bill, which pointed out that in the tyre industry, for example, the Report of the Monopolies Commission came to the conclusion that the restrictionist consequences of the policy of the tyre manufacturers, which had caused grave alarm in the country, arose from the policy of individual resale price maintenance. The Economist pointed out that the Report definitely recommended that if restrictionism in the tyre industry was to be ended, the policy of individual resale price maintenance should be ended. Instead of doing that, however, the Government have given it legal enforcement under the Bill.

What are the Government doing about the tyre industry? On Clause 20 we moved an Amendment that the powers of legal enforcement should be withheld in cases where it was shown that they were contrary to the public interest. The Government, however, would not accept our Amendment, and so there is no safeguard. Under the present procedure, the Government have strengthened one restrictionst practice, which may be a source of trouble in industry after industry. It was for this reason that the Economist said that the Monopolies Commission ought to be continued in its present form as a reserve weapon. Behind the structure proposed by the Bill it ought to be there to examine possible escape routes the Bill may leave open, and to make general recommndations how they could be closed.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary in all seriousness that it is unlikely, as this House consists of human beings, that it has produced a perfect Measure in this Bill. We do not usually produce perfection. At first, we have a shot at producing a Measure which we hope will be perfect. but, and particularly when the matter is one as complicated as this is, it is only a first shot, and what we on this side of the House say is that there may be things about which we want to think again because we may not so far have perfectly legislated for everything. Resale price maintenance is one such thing.

If we have the Monopolies Commission, and if the Board of Trade has power, when it knows there is mounting public anxiety about individual industries, to refer those individual industries for examination, whether or not they are dominated by single-firm monopolies, then we can have inquiries made into how the Bill is working in practice. Perhaps then the Government will decide that Clause 20, in its present form, is a bad Clause, and then they will want to think about it again.

It want to know what the Government are going to do about the tyre industry. If the Government have inhibited themselves, in Clause 20, from meeting the recommendations made in the Monopolies Commission's Report, what effective alternative action is there? According to the Report, there is no alternative effective action. It seems that, as usual, the Parliamentry Secretary is not listening to me. However, I frankly admit to him that I have not had time to study in any detail the new Report which has just come out on the supply of hard fibre cordage. All I have had time to do is to read newspaper summaries of the Report, but from reading those summaries it is clear that here is an industry and an important industrial activity over whose restrictive practices the Monopolies Commission has expressed grave concern. It has condemned a whole list of those practices.

It has condemned the activities of the Hard Fibre Cordage Federation on a large number of counts. I realise that most of them will be covered by the procedures of the Bill, the common price system, for instance, and exclusive. dealing. It may be that another restrictive practice, the prohibition on the manufacture and sale of cords and twines above or below a certain minimum standard, could also be covered. As a sort of restrictive practice agreement it would come under Clause 5, but there is another provision which, at first sight, I should think restrictive, and that is a new prohibition on spinning on commission by non-members of the Federation. Another of the practices which the Report certainly condemns is the resale price maintenance practice.

I suggest that it would be quite possible, if the Monopolies Commission were to continue to function in the old way—not exactly in the old way, perhaps, because Clause 5 will have an effect on its activities, but to continue with the same membership and scope and general powers of surveillance over industry and general powers of inquiry into industry—we should be able to learn things we do not yet know.

There is another side to the matter. The correspondent who wrote the summary of the Report for the Manchester Guardian also wrote: The importance of this Report is not confined to the individual industry. With the publication of more and more reports by the Commission a growing body of precedents is being built up so that the conditions in one industry can be compared with those in another 6.15 p.m.

I suggest that the reason why we have this Bill is that there has been a Monopolies Commission which has been able to build up a body of evidence and to paint a picture of the general situation in British industry, a work which ought to go on, because if it does not the Bill will mean that we shall have substituted for this work of the Monopolies Commission work of a much narrower scope by the Restrictive Practices Court, which will not be examining industrial practices in their broad economic effects, but will be legally interpreting the effects and consequences of individual agreements, and that is a very different thing.

We on this side have argued more than once that we are anxious about the fact that a body predominantly legalistic is now to discuss a problem which is broadly economic. It is particularly important because under Clause 16 we have given that body a duty of defining the public interest, which is a matter, we all agree, that is not strictly justiciable. I should have thought it all the more important to have had the Monopolies Commission continuing to issue reports which enable a picture of the practices in British industry to be clearly depicted, and to provide a basis for comparison of one industry with another, and enable the economic consequences of agreements and practices to be better understood. It is exceptionally bad not to have, in addition to the legal procedure, an economic survey going on at the same time on how restrictionism works in

That is why we, and many other people who may disagree with our views about some things in the Bill, have begged the Government to look at this matter again. Although the Government have made some concessions in response to our arguments, it is a very grave commentary upon their policy that they have not met the non-party and serious arguments which we have put to them on this important matter.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said so clearly and forcibly, the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a completely unsatisfactory reply. There are just three aspects of the work which may be done by the Monopolies Commission. I summarise them briefly.

First, there are the restrictive practices which are not within the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friends have said in the debate, there are, for instance, those of the petrol companies. They are not covered by the Bill unless they form such a big fraction in any case of the total distribution that they fall within the purview of the Commission. Inter-connected bodies corporate and the rest, unless they fall within the purview of the Commission, because they are big enough for the purpose, are not covered by the provisions for the Court or the Commission.

We come to the Commission, upon which the Parliamentary Secretary has relied as applying to those cases of restrictive practices which are outside the Bill. They come within the purview of the Commission only if they are on a big enough scale in each individual case. When they are within the ambit of the Commission, then, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) so clearly, the Bill carefully provides that they can be dealt with only one at a time. Many think that the Government have introduced the Bill to ensure that monopolies shall be dealt with slowly.

We come to restrictive practices which are within the scope of the Bill and would be dealt with by the Court. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and others, what we want is a review of the decisions of the Court in the sense that we want to know what the effect of those decisions is upon the economic structure and policy of the country.

I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary mentioning again the question of a clash when this matter was dealt with very fully in Committee. There is no question of a clash in the proposal. It is merely to ensure that there shall be a review of the decisions of the Court so as to see what effect those decisions are having upon the country's economic position. The whole attitude of the Government on Part III of the Bill, in cutting down the Monopolies Commission in every single aspect of its work, makes some of us doubt the purpose of some of those who are concerned with this Measure.

It is not good enough to say to the House, as the Government have done "We want a great campaign against restrictive practices and monopolies" and then, when we get to Part III of the Bill, we find that the opposite is the case. We shall, therefore, press this matter to a Division.

Mr. Walker-Smith

By leave of the House, perhaps I might in all courtesy deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). In answer to my invitation to name a specific matter which, in her view, lay outside what I would call the general pattern of protection against restrictive practices, the hon. Lady cited the case of individual resale price maintenance by large concerns, such as was revealed in the Commission's Report on tyres.

The provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, are wide enough to allow the Board of Trade to make a reference to the Commission where manufacturers who individually attach price conditions to their goods control at least one-third of the trade, albeit no one manufacturer may himself alone control one-third. References can be made to the Commission on the effect on the public interest of individual resale price maintenance in a great many trades in the country. Powers exist to prohibit them in such cases under paragraphs (c) and (e) of Section 10 (2) of the 1948 Act.

The main point of my seeking leave to speak again is to comment on what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has Just said. He referred to individual cases only in the event of references to the Monopolies Commission, but I am sure that he will have in mind that the conditions defined in Section 3 of the 1948 Act include two or more persons not only when they are inter-connected bodies corporate but are acting together in the way set out in Section 3 (2).

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

The petrol companies are not acting together. That is why it is acknowledged that they do not come within the ambit of the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Walker-Smith

The hon. and learned Member is asserting it. As I said in my previous observations, I am reserving my position on that, because I do not wish to give from this Box an opinion in individual cases eo nomine, if I may repeat the hon. and learned Member's phrase. The other point which he made was equally invalid and insubstantial when he criticised the fact that under this provision cases would come before the Monopolies Commission one at a time instead of under a group system. The former method was instituted in the 1948 Act by the Government of which the hon. and learned Member later became a member. The group system was not initiated until 1953, and this is belated and altogether unconvincing zeal on his part.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that when the Bill and the whole of the Commission scheme were introduced by the Labour Party it was found, when the matter was proceeding, that we wanted quicker work, and further measures were introduced to speed it up? After that experience, the present Government are cutting down the Commission. That is the point.

Mr. Walker-Smith

The hon. and learned Member misconceives the point. His Government remained in office for three years after the Act had been passed and they did not introduce a group system. They left it to this Government to do so. We are now introducing another improvement into the whole pattern and this fits well into the appointed pattern.

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

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 157.

Division No. 219.] AYES [6.25 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hall, John (Wycombe) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Aitken, W. T. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Alport, C. J. M. Harris, Reader (Heston) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nairn, D. L. S.
Amory, Rt. Hn.Heathcoat (Tiverton) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Neave, Airey
Arbuthnot, John Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nield, Basil (Chester)
Armstrong, C. W. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Oakshott, H. D.
Ashton, H. Hay, John O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Atkins, H. E. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Page, R. G.
Balniel, Lord Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Barter, John Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Partridge, E.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pitman, I. J.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Holland-Martin, C. J. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bidgood, J. C. Hornby, R. P. Pott, H. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Horobin, Sir Ian Powell, J. Enoch
Bishop, F. P. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Profumo, J. D.
Black, C. W. Howard, John (Test) Raikes, Sir Victor
Body, R, F. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Rawlinson, Peter
Boothby, Sir Robert Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Redmayne, M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.) Renton, D. L. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Ridsdale, J. E.
Brooman-White, R. C. Hyde, Montgomery Rippon, A. G. F.
Bryan, P. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Iremonger, T. L. Robertson, Sir David
Burden, F. F. A. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Roper, Sir Harold
Campbell, Sir David Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Sharples, R. C.
Carr, Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Shepherd, William
Cary, Sir Robert Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Joseph, Sir Keith Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Keegan, D. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Kerr, H. W. Speir, R. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Kershaw, J. A. Stevens, Geoffrey
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Kimball, M. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Cunningham. Knox Lambton, Viscount Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Currie, G. B. H. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dance, J. C. G. Leburn, W. G. Studholme, Sir Henry
Deedes, W. F. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Summers, Sir Spencer
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Doughty, C. J. A. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Teeling, W.
Drayson, G. B. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
du Cann, E. D. L. Linstead, Sir H. N. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Duthie, W. S. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&L'm'tn) Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Touche, Sir Gordon
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Longden, Gilbert Turner, H. F. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Vane, W. M. F.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswich) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Errington, Sir Eric Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vickers, Miss J. H.
Erroll, F. J. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Vosper, D. F.
Farey-Jones, F. W. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fell, A. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Walker-Smith, D. C.
Finlay, Graeme McLean, Neil (Inverness) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Fisher, Nigel MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Fort, R. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Foster, John Maddan, Martin Webbe, Sir H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Freeth, D. K. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Markham, Major Sir Frank Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
George, J. C. (Pollok) Marlowe, A. A. H. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Gibson-Watt, D. Marples, A. E. Wood, Hon. R.
Godber, J. B. Marshall, Douglas Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Mathew, R.
Gower, H. R. Maude, Angus TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Graham, Sir Fergus Mawby, R. L. Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.
Green, A. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ainsley, J. W. Bacon, Miss Alice Blyton, W. R.
Albu, A. H. Baird, J. Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Benson, G. Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Anderson, Frank Blackburn, F. Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Bowles, F. G. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Boyd, T. C. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hunter, A. E. Pryde, D. J.
Brockway, A. F. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rankin, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, S. (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Janner, B. Reeves, J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Callaghan, L. J. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&St.Pncs,S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, Rt. Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Clunie, J. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Ross, William
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Cronin, J. D. King, Dr. H. M. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Grossman, R. H. S. Lawson, G. M. Sheffington, A. M.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Sorensen, R. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Lewis, Arthur Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, W. (Consett)
de Freitas, Geoffrey MacColl, J. E. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Delargy, H. J. McKay, John (Wallsend) Stross,Dr.Barnett(stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Donnelly, D. L. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mahon, Simon Swingler, S. T.
Dye, S. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thornton, E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Messer, Sir F. Timmons, J.
Fernyhough, E. Mikardo, Ian Turner-Samuels, M.
Fienburgh, W. Mitchison, G. R. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Finch, H. J. Monslow, W. Viant, S. P.
Fletcher, Eric Moody, A. S. Warbey, W. N.
Forman, J. C. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Letvis'm,S.) Weitzman, D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moyle, A. West, D. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mulley, F. W. Wheeldon, W. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Grey, C. F. Oliver, G. H. Wigg, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Oram, A. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Grimond, J. Orbach, M. Willey, Frederick
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oswald, T. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hamilton, W. W. Owen, W. J. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Hastings, S. Padley, W. E. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hayman, F. H. Palmer, A. M. F. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Healey, Denis Pargiter, C. A. Woof, R. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Parker, J. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Holman, P. Paton, John Zilliacus, K.
Holt, A. F. Peart, T. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hubbard, T. F. Plummer, Sir Leslie Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.
Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) desire to move his Amendment?

Mr. Holt

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and myself, I beg to move, in page 21, line 24, at the end to insert: but not before the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed".

We have already had a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grimond

I beg to second the Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 209.

Division No. 220.] AYES [6.35 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Brockway, A. F. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Albu, A. H. Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Deer, G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Brown, Thomas (Ince) de Freitas, Geoffrey
Anderson, Frank Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Delargy, H. J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Callaghan, L. J. Donnelly, D. L.
Baird, J. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Benson, G. Chetwynd, G. R. Dye, S.
Blackburn, F. Clunie, J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Blyton, W. R. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fernyhough, E.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Cronin, J. D. Fienburgh, W.
Bowles, F. G. Cullen, Mrs. A. Finch, H. J.
Boyd, T. C. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Fletcher, Eric
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Darling, George (Hillsborough) Forman, J. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mahon, Simon Shurmer, P. L. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Grey, C. F. Mann, Mrs. Jean Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Marquand, Fit. Hon. H. A. Skeffington, A. M.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Messer, Sir F. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mikardo, Ian Sorensen, R. W.
Hamilton, W. W. Mitchison, G. R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hastings, S. Monslow, W. Stones, W. (Consett)
Hayman, F. H. Moody, A. S. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Healey, Denis Morrison,Fit.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Moyle, A. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Holman, P. Mulley, F. W. Swingler, S. T.
Holmes, Horace Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hubbard, T. F. Oliver, G. H. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oram, A. E. Thornton, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Orbach, M. Timmons, J.
Hunter, A. E. Oswald, T. Turner-Samuels, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Owen, W. J. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Irving, S. (Dartford) Padley, W. E. Viant, S. P.
Janner, B. Palmer, A. M. F. Warbey, W. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Pargiter, G. A. Weitzman, D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.) Parker, J. West, D. G.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Paton, John Wheeldon, W. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Peart, T. F. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wigg, George
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Proctor, W. T. Willey, Frederick
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pryde, D. J. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
King, Dr. H. M. Randall, H. E. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Lawson, G. M. Rankin, John Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Redhead, E. C. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Reeves, J. Woof, R. E.
Lewis, Arthur Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Lipton, Lt.-Gol. M. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Zilliacus, K.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
MacColl, J. E. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McKay, John (Wallsend) Ross, William Mr. Grimond and Mr. Holt.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Deedes, W. F. Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Aitken, W. T. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Alport, C. J. M. Doughty, C. J. A. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Drayson, C. B. Hornby, R. P.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) du Cann, E. D. L. Horobin, Sir Ian
Arbuthnot, John Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hn. Dame Florence
Armstrong, C. W. Duthie, W. S. Howard, John (Test)
Ashton, H. Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&L'm'tn) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admral J.
Atkins, H. E. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Balniel, Lord Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Barter, John Errington, Sir Eric Hyde, Montgomery
Baxter, Sir Beverley Erroll, F. J. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Farey-Jones, F. W. Iremonger, T. L.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Fell, A. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Finlay, Graeme Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bidgood, J. C. Fisher, Nigel Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Biggs Davison, J. A. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bishop, F. P. Fort, R. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Black, C. W. Foster, John Joseph, Sir Keith
Body, R. F. Fraser, Sir Ian(M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Boothby, Sir Robert Freeth, D. K. Keegan, D.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Garner-Evans, E. H. Kerr, H. W.
Boyle, Sir Edward George, J. C. (Pollok) Kershaw, J. A.
Braine, B. R. Gibson, C. W. Kimball, M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Godber, J. B. Lambton, Viscount
Brooman-White, R. C. Gomme-Duncan, Cot. Sir Alan Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bryan, P. Gower, H. R. Leburn, W. G.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Graham, Sir Fergus Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Burden, F. F. A. Green, A. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hall, John (Wycombe) Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Campbell, Sir David Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Carr, Robert Harris, Reader (Heston) Linstead, Sir H. N.
Cary, Sir Robert Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Longden, Gilbert
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hay, John Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Cunningham, Knox Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Currie, G. B. H. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Dance, J. C. G. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) PickthOrn, K. W. M. Summers, Sir Spencer
Macmillan,Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Pitman, I. J. Teeling, W.
Maddan, Martin Pitt, Miss E. M. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle) Pott, H. P. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Powell, J. Enoch Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Markham, Major Sir Frank Raikes, Sir Victor Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Marlowe, A. A. H. Rawlinson, Peter Touche, Sir Gordon
Marples, A. E. Redmayne, M. Turner, H. F. L.
Marshall, Douglas Renton, D. L. M. Vane, W. M. F.
Mathew, R. Ridsdale, J. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Maude, Angus Rippon, A. G. F. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Mawby, R. L. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Vosper, D. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Robertson, Sir David Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Roper, Sir Harold Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Sharples, R. C. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Shepherd, William Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Nairn, D. L. S. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Heave, Airey Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Webbe, Sir H.
Nield, Basil (Chester) Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Oakshott, H. D. Speir, R. M. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Stevens, Geoffrey Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Page, R. G. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Woollam, John Victor
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Partridge, E. Studholme, Sir Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.