HC Deb 17 April 1962 vol 658 cc312-64
Mr. Popplewell

I beg to move, in page 12, line 37, at the end to insert or if the exercise of that power appears to the Board to be likely to improve the financial position of the Board and to be consonant with the other activities of the Board".

Mr. Speaker

It is probably convenient for the House to discuss with this the Amendment in page 12, line 41, to leave out from "anything" to the end of the line and to insert "otherwise than as aforesaid".

Mr. Popplewell

I think that it would be very convenient to discuss both Amendments together. An important principle is involved. We discussed it at length in Standing Committee and I make no apology for returning to it now.

We were told only yesterday that discussions were taking place with the railway trade unions about the future of railway workshops. The Minister's new appointee, Dr. Beeching, is making the right hon. Gentleman eat his own words on the subject of centralisation and decentralisation. and the ideology of the Tory Party is being thrown to the winds There must be centralisation of railway workshops if they are to work efficiently. The Tories now accept this as a fait accompli and we are seeking to increase the efficiency of the workshops.

Evidence was given before the Select Committee by the then Chairman of the British Transport Commission. Sir Brian Robertson, and many of his technical advisers, who spoke about the general efficiency of railway workshops and their ability to compete on fair terms against work produced by workshops outside the industry. Members of that Committee heard a brief resumé from Sir Brian Robertson of the reasons why it was necessary to establish the workshops in the first place. I suggest that what he described as the then deciding factor in establishing the workshops still holds good. We now say that in this new policy of centralisation and specialisation the Minister should accept the words of the Amendment. The whole purpose is to try to help the Minister.

6.45 p.m.

Tory policy has been such that the Transport Commission is running up huge yearly deficits, whereas under the provisions of the original Act the Commission could pay all the interest charges and show a profit. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) and the Minister and many others often point to the weaknesses in that Act, but this is a canard. This is a red herring which they drag across the trail. We know that the Act enabled the Commission to pay its way and show a profit. It is only the fumbling that has taken place since the Government took over in 1951 that has prevented the Commission from adjusting its charges to meet increasing costs, which have now accumulated to £850 million which the taxpayer is having to pay.

By means of the Amendment we are now telling the Minister that here is an opportunity for him to recognise the error of his ways and to allow the Railways Board to compete on fair terms with outside competitors in anything which the Board, in the exercise of its powers, might consider likely to improve its financial situation. This is a fair offer. We are not asking for subsidies, or anything of that description. We are not asking for the additional £450 million which the taxpayer will have to pay to the Railways Board in the next five years, as is envisaged in the Bill.

We are not asking that any of that subsidy should be used in the costing system to enable the workshops to be more self-supporting. We are seeking power to allow the railway workshops, by their own efficiency and skill and by automation and accountancy, to be able to produce any goods which the Board feels they are capable of producing and which will improve their financial position.

We say further that when, with this review and severe curtailment, a large amount of redundancy will be caused in the areas which will not come within the purview of the centralised and specialised railway workshops which are to be established, some thought should be given to the men concerned. At East-leigh, for example, 850 out of about 1,200 employed on railway work have received notice that within a reasonably short period of time their services will not be required. This will have a serious effect on a town which depends upon the output of the railway workshops for its well being.

This story can be repeated in many other towns. General uncertainty prevails in the railway workshops. There are to be severe reductions in the workshops at Swindon and at Horwich. The nation has been compelled to pay large amounts in subsidies to our transport because of the Government's policy, and the Minister has a responsibility to reduce that expenditure. Here is an opportunity to give the railways the opportunity to compete fairly in work which the workshops are quite capable of taking on. That is not an outrageous suggestion.

The right hon. Gentleman rejected similar Amendments during the Committee stage. In the interests of the nation, we hope that he will see the error of his ways, accept our Amendment and so improve this shocking Bill. If he did so, it would be one slight redeeming feature, one slight gleam of light, in the Bill.

Mr. J. T. Price

I rise, firstly, to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am extremely sorry that after having made some comments earlier I was compelled to leave the Chamber for some time in order to keep another appointment in the building. It was no calculated discourtesy to him that I was not in my place when he replied. I know that he will accept that from me as an accurate account of what took place.

I have good reason to support this Amendment. The railway workshops are an integral part of the British transport system, but they have been, in many ways, prejudiced by the Government's policy. Dr. Beeching said in my presence, and I think it is on record, that when he began to investigate the very complex affairs of the British Transport Commission he found out quite early that the workshops were carrying what he called "surplus capacity" In other words, he discovered this fact by looking at this matter purely as an administrator, a man asked to advise on organisation and methods. He looked on the railways as an entity and considered what was surplus to their needs.

That is a very serious comment on the situation. Does this approach find support in Government circles? I am always prepared to face the facts. I do not run away from those which are awkward. But since 1954, when reorganisation was announced by the then Minister of Transport, the work in these shops has proceeded at various tempos, according to the economic conditions of the country—a "stop and start" business which applied, of course, not only to the railways themselves but also to other economic activity because of the lack of vision, will and essential principle in the Government.

As reorganisation developed and worn-out equipment began to be replaced, the decision was taken—and I agree with it—that steam traction should be abandoned. It was decided that these lovely locomotives, built by both railway workshops and by private enterprise at places like the old Vulcan Foundry in Newton-Le-Willows—machines which were admired by boys who wanted to drive them when they grew up—should be swept away.

I accepted that decision, but what was involved? There was a major shift of work from the railway workshops to private enterprise, which had tooled-up workshops to make the new models. I hesitate to use a bastard word, which I always try to avoid, but under dieselisaition—that ugly word—there was the transfer from steam to oil traction by the use of deisel electric locomotives. Many railway workshops were built 100 years ago and have not the equipment to manufacture these great machines. Indeed, the first diesel locomotive on British railways, used experimentally, was imported from Germany and has been taken as a prototype for succeed- ing engines. Since then, big orders for diesels have been given to private enterprise firms, and this has meant finding something else to replace the basic work of the railway workshops, which was the building and maintaining of steam locomotives.

All this is fact, and we cannot do very much about it at the moment. But, on the reconstruction of our railways with the use of this vast amount of Government sponsored new capital, greater attention should have been paid to equipping and re-tooling the railway workshops in order to make them more capable of doing the work which they had done formerly in steam days. This is one of the tragedies of the situation.

I should like to see the facts and figures in order to reach my own judgment, but if there is surplus capacity in the railway workshops then it should be made available to do contract work for outside firms. I cite the example which I know best—the very large and historic workshop situated in my constituency in Lancashire. The Horwich railway workshops have for generations maintained and equipped our railways. Indeed, the old Lancashire and Yorkshire railway was built and equipped from there. Now, notices of redundancy have been served—though I hope that redundancy may be avoided—because there are supposed to be surplus capacity and too many workers.

But this establishment is capable of doing all sorts of work over a wide range of engineering products. This Bill, however, will prevent it from doing something which every prudent manufacturer in private industry considers should be done in his business. Every efficient engineering company is not only concerned with servicing its own auxiliary and associated companies but has a contracts department for getting outside work. Why should not the railway workshops be given the same facilities? Why should not the public purse at least be cushioned to some extent by the use of this surplus capital equipment for which the nation, through the British Transport Commission, has paid?

7.0 p.m.

Let me remind the Minister—I apologise to him if he knows it already—that if, during the period of the Second World War, the railway workshops at Horwich had not been equipped to do work other than that connected with locomotives, this country would have suffered greatly, because some of the magnificent tanks used on the plains of Flanders were manufactured in those workshops. During the war period we did not hesitate to use the capacity of these workshops to the full. We did not, as it were, erect an "iron curtain" between work for the railways and other kinds of work. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the railway workshops at Horwich have a magnificent record for having produced the sinews of war in the form of tanks and other military equipment.

During the Committee stage proceedings on this Bill this point was urged upon the Minister in a number of different ways. He knows that there is here a question of principle which divides hon. Members on this side of the Committee from hon. Members opposite. I am normally a tolerant man, but I am tired of hearing political cynics saying that there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. On such issues as this the cleavage is apparent. I appreciate the point of view of hon. Members opposite who may, because of business interests be identified in an ideological sense with private industry as distinct from the nationalised and publicly-owned industry. But it is nonsense in economic terms to prevent the resources of the nation from being used to the fullest extent.

I apologise for having spoken longer than I intended. But I must recall that during the Committee stage proceedings there was a time when hon. Members opposite put Amendments on the Notice Paper which were designed to put shackles on the Transport Commission and prevent it from doing any work except that which could be identified with railway equipment. We should be sufficiently broad-minded to appreciate that having taken the responsibility for this great industry, which is vital to the economic life of our country, the nation should make the best use of its capacity and not allow artificial restrictions to be imposed upon it by the Minister of Transport. I hope that this Amendment wild be supported and that we shall have a more convincing reply from the Minister than those which were given to us during the Committee stage proceedings.

Mr. Cole

Everyone is concerned about the redundancy which may well follow from the closing of railway workshops. But I have been studying this Amendment which, if adopted, would give all the Boards the power to make any article which it was thought would be to their financial betterment. We may confine our consideration to railway workshops—the rest of the possibilities are too artificial to contemplate. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) argued that ralilway workshops should be tooled up to be able to deal with diesel engines. That would be an enormous undertaking. I wish to ask whether there is any limit to the number of articles which might be supplied by the various boards.

Mr. Mellish

So that he may know what he is talking about, I suggest that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) should look at subsection (4) of the Clause. He may find the answers to some of his questions.

Mr. Cole

Obviously, if his intervention meant anything the hon. Member was referring to the fact that the boards will have to submit their proposals to the Ministry regarding construction and manufacture. But if the Committee accept this Amendment, that will not alter the benefit which would accrue to the boards.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) maintained that no subsidy or subvention was being asked for. If it happened that the workshops were tooled up to deal with the repair of diesel engines and a loss was sustained, would that loss be met in any other way than by the provision, as it were, of an annual subsidy?

The hon. Member for Westhoughton was honest enough to admit that there is an ideological difference between hon. Members on each side of the Committee. I do not believe, even if they were tooled up to do the job, that the railway workshops could compete with private industry where money has already been spent to provide equipment to do this work. If private firms lose money on their enterprises only the shareholders suffer. But if the railway workshops lose money it is the people of the country who will suffer, and I am not prepared to encourage that risk to be taken by voting for this Amendment.

Mr. Manuel

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) should not appreciate the intention of the Amendment which seems to me to be quite clear. It states: or if the exercise of that power appears to the Board to be likely to improve the financial position of the Board … That means that any undertaking which would be likely to improve the financial position of the board. Apparently such an assurance is not sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. The possible need to retool the railway workshops in order to enable certain work to be done represents only one aspect of the matter. At the present time there are a great many components which could be produced and which could be exported. Steam locomotives are still used in many parts of the Commonwealth and in our Colonies and there would be a possible market for the articles which might be produced in the railway workshops. But if, as the hon. Member thinks, the railway workshops could not compete with private enterprise, why is he bothered?

Mr. Cole

I carefully did not say that the railway workshops could not compete with private enterprise. I said that the capital had already been spent by private enterprise firms. so why spend it again?

Mr. Manuel

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) devoted his argument to the railway workshops. Many of us who care for the railways are deeply concerned about the possibility of unemployment and redundancy if the workshops are not enabled to continue production.

Do the Government want the boards to have every opportunity to compete and to make profits? Do they want to help the Railways Board, or any other board, to better its position, or are they so concerned with creating protection round the private sector of the economy that they will not give the boards the opportunity to better their financial position if that might mean eating into the pre- serves of some other people because they could do it better or cheaper and, by exercising managerial capacity, could get a little of the market?

If the Minister were wise he would consider that he might prevent a great social upheaval and the drifting of large sections of population to other parts of the country. In other spheres of activity the Government claim that they are trying to avoid that and to get greater dispersal, not an added aggregation of population in the centres of southern England and the Midlands. Where there is a community of railway men I should have thought that the Minister would be concerned to see that it should not be broken up.

There is a social side to this question to which regard should be had by the Minister. We are not asking him to provide any financial palliative to carry on something which would be completely uneconomic. We think these railway workshops ought to be given enough freedom to produce what they could produce, and, possibly, to export to countries which use railway components. I am not thinking only of locomotives but of other things which have to do with tracks and signalling which could go on to the export market with a chance of success. Are we against that?

Would the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South be against Britain improving her export position because a nationalised industry was doing that? Is he so unpatriotic that he would have Britain's position remain less than it ought to be when the railway workshops could compete successfully in that market?

The Minister ought to have regard to the case made by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West who has such an intimate connection with the work of employees in railway workshops. The Minister ought to have second thoughts on this matter. If he cannot swallow the Amendment whole, possibly it could be better worded. Perhaps we have not chosen appropriate words which he could accept, but, thinking of the issues which have been raised in this debate, could he not reconsider this matter with a view at a later stage of the Bill to doing something to soften the blow which seems to be coming to these great centres of railway industry which have helped the country so much in the past?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Marples

We have had an interesting debate on this Amendment which, as I see it, seeks to enable the boards to exercise powers which are at present given them in Clause 13 (1) in such a way as to allow them to manufacture for other persons without restriction where that would appear to a board to be likely to improve its financial position and be consistent with its other activities.

This proposal has been advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. West (Mr. Popplewell) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). who accused us of having an ideological prejudice against such an extension of powers. I believe the hon. Member said that restrictions were placed on the workshops by the Government because of the ideology which we as Conservatives have, but is that so? At present the workshops have no powers to do this. They were not given the power under the 1947 Act.

Mr. Popplewell

"Tell me the old, old story".

Mr. Marples

No, this is not "the old, old story". Under the parent Act the British Transport Commission can manufacture only for its own purposes. That provision has not been imposed on anyone by this Government, but was done by another Government. By that proviso the Commission is expressly prohibited from manufacturing for third parties. The Commission, therefore, is not at present in the position which this Amendment seeks to achieve for the new undertakings set up under the Bill. The Commission cannot manufacture for export, nor is it allowed to balance its order books by manufacturing for others in its workshop facilities.

Mr. J. T. Price

When reciting chapter and verse from the previous Act and the provisions of this Bill, is the Minister not forgetting that on Second Reading of this Bill he said that the object was to give the Transport Commission more and more freedom? Now he is denying the Commission more freedom.

Mr. Marples

No. the object of the Commission is transport, not necessarily the manufacture of articles. The object is freedom to move people from place A to place B, not manufacture. The position is comparable to that relating to industrial products of the nationalised power boards.

I feel very hurt by some of the harsh words which have been uttered in this debate by hon. Members opposite. We have allowed the new Railways Board and the other boards to go further than they would be allowed under the provisions of the 1947 Act. I feel it a little hard to be accused of being stingy-minded. The boards are allowed to manufacture for each others' purposes and for the purposes of their subsidiaries and the subsidiaries of the Holding Company. That is provided in Clause 13 (1). The Inland Waterways Authority has power to manufacture specialised inland waterways equipment for use on inland waterways. Certain powers of the Commission taken under private Acts are continued to provide equipment for the Ulster Transport Authority—a very important authority—and to provide certain things for the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

We have allowed the railway workshops to make items for London Transport and we have allowed for a cross manufacture, as it were, between the boards and Holding Company. Therefore, we have gone further than the party opposite went in the 1947 Act. I felt quite wounded that hon. Members opposite should make their references to me after we have been so generous in this respect. This limited extension of manufacturing activities for other purposes is only within the new transport structure. There is no intention that the boards should maintain or invest in productive capacity additional to their own needs for the purposes of serving other undertakings and the Minister's control would be used accordingly.

I realise that in the workshops there is genuine anxiety about redundancy. It would be the intention of the Transport Commission and of the new Railways Board that any redundancy should be carried out in consultation with the unions to minimise the impact on those who have to change their employment. Whether we like it or not, this House and the country have to face the fact that people have to change their jobs when the products they make are continually changing. If we were not to change jobs we would still be making saddles for horses. When there is redundancy and people have to change their jobs that ought to be done in the most reasonable and intelligent manner possible. I give the assurance to the House that that will be done in this case.

Mr. Manuel

Is the Minister giving a forthright pledge to the House that in any redundancy involving loss of grade by any workshop employee, or dismissal, he will be brought within the ambit of compensation under Clause 78 and will have compensation awarded accordingly?

Mr. Marples

With all respect to him, the hon. Member cannot read that into what I said. I said that in principle we should do this in a decent, human fashion in consultation with the unions. I cannot say specifically what will happen in every isolated case.

Mr. Popplewell

The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be done in a decent, human fashion in consultation with the unions. What does he mean by that? If a person loses his job and has no other job to go to, where is the decency or humanity attached to it? Does the Minister mean that a man's services will not be dispensed with until he has another job in some other industry within reasonable distance, to which he can go, and that the normal type of redundancy will be covered by the normal wastage which takes place within the industry?

Mr. Marples

The hon. Member has made another rather longish speech. The point I make is that the Chairman of the British Transport Commission has already seen the unions about this and is consulting them. He has told them what might happen to the workshops and that he will consult them on the question of redundancy. When I speak of a decent human fashion, I cannot say at this stage what will happen to every man at every workshop, nor is it possible for anyone to say that, not even the hon. Member. There will be con- sultation, and it is up to the unions to put their arguments forward as to the way in which men should be treated in different grades. The Commission indicated to the unions that railway workshop capacity must be reduced. About 110,000 men are employed there. The first step is the intention to cease the production of carriages at Swindon and Eastleigh on completion of the present orders. Similarly, locomotive production is to cease at Horwich, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said.

Precisely the same thing is happening in the private sector. The Gloucester Carriage and Wagon Co. is to stop producing rolling stock, and companies in the Birmingham area are faced with a redundancy problem. It is not just the nationalised sector which is being reduced but the private sector, too, because the demand for this sort of equipment is falling.

Mr. Popplewell

The redundancy in the private sector in Birmingham, in the C. and W. works, is entirely their own fault because of inaccuracy in tendering.

Mr. Marples

All I am saying is that the orders which will be available to the nationalised sector and the private sector are being reduced. It applies to both sectors equally. Whatever the reason, it is a fact of life which has to be accepted.

An argument advanced by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was that the redundancy problem was such that the workshops should be allowed to keep capacity going by manufacturing as wide a range as possible for as many organisations as will give them orders. The fundamental fallacy of this is that it ignores the basic position of excess capacity in the rolling stock and locomotive manufacturing industry. The manufacture by railway workshops of other parts would merely increase the problem for private manufacturers, while diversification in the railway workshops on the same principle would have similar effects.

Exports have to be fought for against severe competition. There is no easy business to be picked up from overseas buyers by just asking the workshops to tender. The railways would have to set up an export sales organisation, recruiting experienced men in this special work, and I maintain that the railways' job is pretty formidable as it is without adding to the task which they already have. Secondly, British Railways' requirements in many important respects are quite different from those overseas. What they are manufacturing now bears no relevance to what is wanted by firms abroad. Operational conditions overseas are highly specialised and entirely different, depending on the climate and the use to which the railways are put.

Thirdly, to deal with the argument about exports put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, the export trade in locomotives and rolling stock is largely bound up with the provision of long-term finance. We all know how countries abroad want long-term finance. I have described the position of the railways as a nationalised undertaking with heavy commitments, and I think that it would be unwise to involve them in these complex problems, certainly if they have to give seven to twelve years' credit. The deficit on revenue account of British Railways is about £150 million a year and we are finding about £140 million a year for modernisation. These are huge sums, and it would not be right to ask these people, organisationally, financially or technically, to undertake any more immense tasks.

I have to resist the Amendment on three grounds. The first is that the extension of the powers proposed goes further than the Labour Party went in 1947. I have already gone a little further than they went, and I have wondered whether I was wise in doing so. I did not think that I should be accused by the Labour Party of being ideological when I had gone further than they went in the 1947 Act.

The second reason is that the board can already exercise its powers under Clause 13 (1) where the powers are required for the purposes of the business of the board or any other board. It can interchange its manufactured goods.

Thirdly, any extension of these powers should be resisted on the policy ground that it would take the board well beyond its set task. In my view the set task of British Railways is already formidable—one of the most formidable tasks in the country. It would create additional capacity, such as in rolling stock, where there is already an adequate and, indeed, a surplus capacity of manufacture and a need for a reduction in capacity in both the public and the private sectors. If there is a need to reduce both, it seems nonsensical to increase the capacity of one at the expense of the other. I therefore hope that after I have made such a reasonable speech and shown what we have done compared with what was done in the 1947 Act, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss

I will not take the time of the House for more than two or three minutes, but in view of one or two things which the Minister said I must put him right. His attitude is wholly out of date and unwise.

One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments was that under the 1947 Act the railway workshops, with various bodies doing repairs and other work, were not given power to do anything beyond what was required for their own business for the railways. The reasons for this were simple and twofold. First, the pressure of private industry at that time was very strong. Private industry had been disorganised by the war and wanted to get back into business. The leaders of private industry said, "We must have all possible chance, unfettered by competition, to retrieve our industrial competitive position". It was a strong argument.

Secondly, there was every prospect of the railway workshops for many years being occupied with their own activities in putting the railway wagons and engines, which for years had not been replaced, in a decent state. For those two reasons the Minister at the time thought that it would not be unreasonable to restrict the railway workshops from competing for outside orders.

But does the same situation exist today? The railways are losing large sums of money. We are not suggesting that there should be huge capital investments in the workshops, or that they should go into private industry on a huge scale. The railways are losing money and are putting up fares and cutting down staff. Yet in those circumstances the Minister says that even where the railway workshops could do a job, possibly to help a local manufacturer by making a bit of machinery, at a profit, in no circumstances may they use their highly-skilled men or equipment to undertake a profitable job, even when they could do it easily and when it is required for private industry. It would be doing a social service. Even where it would be helping the men and, maybe, keeping workshops in operation, and generally would be beneficial nationally.

Division No. 162.] AYES [7.31 p.m.
Ainsley, William Hamilton, William (West Fife) Padley, W. E.
Albu, Austen Hannan, William Pargiter, G. A.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Harper, Joseph Parker, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hayman, F. M. Paton, John
Awbery, Stan Healey, Dennis Pavitt, Laurence
Bacon, Miss Alice Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Beaney, Alan Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pentland, Norman
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hilton, A. V. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Benson, Sir George Holman, Percy Popplewell, Ernest
Blackburn, F. Holt, Arthur Prentice, R. E.
Blyton, William Houghton, Douglas Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Boardman, H. Hoy, James H. Proctor, W. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughies, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Randall, Harry
Bowles, Frank Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Boyden, James Hunter, A. E. Redhead, E. C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Reld, William
Brockway, A. Fenner Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Janner, Sir Barnett Robertson, John (Paisley)
Callaghan, James Jeger, George Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Short, Edward
Darling, George Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kelley, Richard Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) King, Dr. Horace Small, William
Deer, George Lawson, George Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Snow, Julian
Dempsey, James Lipton, Marcus Sorensen, R. W.
Diamond, John Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Dodds, Norman Lubbock, Eric Stonehouse, John
Donnelly, Desmond Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Driberg, Tom MacColl, James Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John McInnes, James Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Swingler, Stephen
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Taverne, D.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) McLeavy, Frank Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Finch, Harold Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Fitch, Alan Manuel, Archie Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fletcher, Eric Mapp, Charles Thornton, Ernest
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mason, Roy Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mayhew, Christopher Wade, Donald
Forman, J. C. Mellish, R. J. Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mendelson, J. J. Warbey, William
Galpern, Sir Myer Millan, Bruce Watkins, Tudor
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mitchison, G. R. Weitzman, David
Ginsburg, David Monslow, Walter Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moody, A. S. Whitlock, William
Greenwood, Anthony Moyle, Arthur Wigg, George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Neal, Harold Wilkins, W. A.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Oliver, G. H. Willey, Frederick
Gunter, Ray Oram, A. E. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Oswald, Thomas Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

I agree with my hon. Friends that this Clause is plainly the result of prejudice against nationalised enterprise of any sort and of a bias in favour of private enterprise. That is why there is this complete bar against this form of competition and potentially profitable activity in the workshops. This is why we have moved the Amendment, and we certainly propose carrying the matter to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 241.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) Winterbottom, R. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) Woof, Robert Mr. Grey and Mr. Cronin.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Agnew, Sir Peter Gardner, Edward Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Aitken, W. T. George, J. C. (Pollok) Mawby, Ray
Allason, James Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Arbuthnot, John Gilmour, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Glover, Sir Douglas Mills, Stratton
Atkins, Humphrey Goodhew, Victor Montgomery, Fergus
Barber, Anthony Gough, Frederick More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Barlow, Sir John Cower, Raymond Morrison, John
Batsford, Brian Grant, Rt. Hon. William Nabarro, Gerald
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Green, Alan Noble, Michael
Bell, Ronald Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Gurden, Harold Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Berkeley, Humphry Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Bidgood, John C. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Biffen, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John Harvle Anderson, Miss Peel, John
Bingham, R. M. Hay, John Peyton, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bishop, F. P. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pitman, Sir James
Black, Sir Cyril Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pitt, Miss Edith
Bossom, Clive Hiley, Joseph Pott, Percivall
Bourne-Arton A. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Box, Donald Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Prior, J. M. L.
Braine, Bernard Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pym, Francis
Brewis, John Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hirst, Geoffrey Rawlinson, Peter
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hobson, Sir John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bryan, Paul Hocking, Philip N. Rees, Hugh
Buck, Antony Holland, Philip Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bullard, Denys Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Renton, David
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hopkins, Alan Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hornby, R. P. Ridsdale, Julian
Cary, Sir Robert Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Rippon, Geoffrey
Chataway, Christopher Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Roots, William
Chichester-Clark, R. Hughes-Young, Michael Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hulbert, Sir Norman Russell, Ronald
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Scott-Hopkins, James
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Seymour, Leslie
Cleaver, Leonard James, David Sharples, Richard
Cole, Norman Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Shaw, M.
Collard, Richard Jennings, J. C. Shepherd, William
Cooke, Robert Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Skeet, T. H. H.
Cooper, A. E. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cordle, John Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Smithers, Peter
Corfield, F. V. Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Costain, A. P. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Speir, Rupert
Coulson, Michael Kerby, Capt. Henry Stanley, Hon. Richard
Craddock, Sir Beresford Kerr, Sir Hamilton Stevens, Geoffrey
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kimball, Marcus Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cunningham, Knox Kirk, Peter Stodart, J. A.
Curran, Charles Kitson, Timothy Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Currie, G. B. H. Lagden, Godfrey Storey, Sir Samuel
Dalkeith, Earl of Lancaster, Col. C. G. Studholme, Sir Henry
Dance, James Leather, E. H. C. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
d'Avigdor-Goldemid, Sir Henry Leburn, Gilmour Tapsell, Peter
Deedee, W. F. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
de Ferranti, Basil Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Teeling, Sir William
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lindsay, Sir Martin Temple, John M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Linstead, Sir Hugh Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Doughty, Charles Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Drayson, G. B. Loveys, Walter H. Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
du Cann, Edward Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Duncan, Sir James Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Eden, John McAdden, Stephen Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) MacArthur, Ian Turner, Colin
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) McLaren, Martin van Straubenzee, W. R.
Errington, Sir Eric McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Vane, W. M. F.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)
Farr, John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Fell, Anthony McMaster, Stanley R. Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Finlay, Graeme Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Walder, David
Fisher, Nigel Maddan, Martin Wall, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maginnis, John E. Ward, Dame Irene
Foster, John Markham, Major Sir Frank Webster, David
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Wells, John (Maidstone)
Freeth, Denzil Marshall, Douglas Whitelaw, William
Gammans, Lady Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) Woodhouse, C. M. Mr. Frank Pearson and
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Woollam, John Mr. Michael Hamilton.
Wise, A. R. Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, to leave out from "modification" to the end of line 21.

This Amendment raises quite a simple point. In the previous Amendment we were speaking about the general powers of manufacture that are being granted to the boards, and while Clause 13 starts off with some words which, apparently, give the boards substantial powers to manufacture, by the time we read the end of the Clause we find that these powers are very much circumscribed.

The Minister has already turned down an Amendment designed to extend the boards' powers of manufacture, and it is obvious that the Government are not willing that that should happen. Subsection (4) makes it clear that any powers which the boards are given by subsection (1) may be had only after they have submitted their proposals to the Minister and the Minister has approved them. A study of subsection (4) reveals that the Minister has considerable powers, because the can not only approve or disapprove the boards' proposals, but he can also modify them. Even more surprising are the last three lines of this subsection, which state: … the Minister may, after consultation with a Board, direct that Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved. Those words provide—and the Amendment seeks to eliminate them—that even after the proposals have been approved the Minister will be able at any time to call on the boards to discontinue their activities. Surely this must be a contradiction in terms? The Minister already has wide powers, and if he does not like a board's proposals he can turn them down or modify them to suit his wishes.

In these circumstances it seems totally unnecessary that the Minister should also have these powers of directing a board to discontinue its activities—activities which the right hon. Gentleman has already, with his powers, approved. After all, the Minister spoke in Committee about the necessity of allowing a certain amount of flexibility. On that occasion we were discussing whether or not the boards' plans should be made annually, three-yearly or on another basis. It is obvious, however, that while the right hon. Gentleman used the word "flexibility" the is now giving the boards very little flexibility indeed.

If there is any flexibility at all it is in the hands of the Minister—flexibility which allows him to do what he likes with the boards' plans. If we are to have long-term planning by the boards and if they are to think ahead, not just on an annual basis but over several years, it is surely wrong that these plans can, at any time, be subject to a direction of the Minister that they must be completely overturned. As I say, the Minister already has ample powers. The additional powers contained in these last three lines seem totally unnecessary, and I hope, therefore, that he will accept the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), as always, put his case reasonably and persuasively as befits anyone with the professional training of a chartered accountant

The purpose of the Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, is to delete the express power given to the Minister in subsection (4). Under this subsection the Minister has power to direct a board, after consultation, to discontinue any manufacturing or production activity being carried on in accordance with proposals approved by the Minister under an earlier provision of the Clause.

Let us consider the background to this, and I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to carefully consider this. The British Transport Commission, under Section 2 of the 1947 Act, has wide powers of manufacture for the purposes of its own undertaking. However, it could not manufacture for other persons, and for this purpose a rigid quota was written into the Act. The B.T.C.'s powers to manufacture road vehicle equipment and chassis were expressly limited by quotas set out in the Act. Rightly or wrongly, a rigid quota was imposed on the Commission regarding numbers. In the Bill I have sought to give the boards more flexible powers to manufacture and I have taken away that quota restriction.

We had two main factors in mind when deciding that manufacturing powers should be given to the new undertakings. First, the circumstances of the organisation and division of the Commission's overall undertakings between a number of separate boards meant that some departure was necessary from the previous position when, of course, there was only one undertaking. Secondly, in giving the boards power to manufacture for each other and for subsidiaries of the Holding Company, it was necessary to ensure that each board should not go beyond its set task. Therefore, in accordance with the first principle I set out, Clause 13 (1) provides that Each of the Boards shall have power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for the purposes of the business—

  1. (a) of that Board,
  2. (b) of any other Board, or
  3. (c) of a subsidiary of any of the Boards or of a subsidiary of the Holding Company."

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

Does that include sub-contracting?

Mr. Marples

As long as it is for the other boards within the nationalised sector of the transport industry. This is defensible on the grounds of the complex pattern of manufacture which the Commission has built up and which we wish to see preserved. We have now swept away the quantitative control—the statutory quotas in the 1947 Act—which lay it down that only a certain number of this or that may be manufactured. That was a rigid, fixed control. I want to sweep that away, as regards numbers, and let the Minister decide what the position should be in the light of the prevailing circumstances. I have, in fact, replaced a rigid control by a flexible one, and I would have thought that that would be to the advantage of the new boards.

Mr. Weitzman

What on earth has that got to do with the Amendment? The Minister is referring to a different part of the Clause which has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Marples

It has a great deal to do with it. The Amendment wants to delete the express power that the Minister has in subsection (4) to direct a … Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved I am saying that I want that power.

Mr. Millan rose

Mr. Manuel

The Minister is replying to the wrong Amendment.

Mr. Marples

The Amendment wants to leave out the words from "modification" to the end of line 21. The Opposition want to delete the words: … but the Minister may, after consultation with a Board, direct that Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved. Thus the Opposition do not want the Minister to have power to direct boards to discontinue these activities and I am saying that I want the Minister to have this power.

Mr. Millan

Under this subsection each of the boards must submit proposals from time to time. Surely the next time a board submits its proposals the Minister can inform it that whatever it is must be discontinued? Why does he need this additional power?

Mr. Marples

I do not want to wait for the boards to come to the Minister. I want the Minister to have power to make them discontinue. That is because we have given the boards freedom from these restrictive quotas which existed in the 1947 Act. If the party opposite wants these words deleted and the quotas put back that would be another matter. As I say, we have swept away this rigid quota and have substituted what I think is a flexible method. If hon. Members of the Labour Party—or hon. Members of the party occupying the second bench below the Gangway, two of whom I now see present—wish this quota reinstated, they should say so. I suggest that the words contained in the Clause give the Minister flexible control and that that is better than something rigid being written into an Act—something which may not be appropriate in five or ten years' time. I should have thought that was common sense. Therefore, I am bound to say that I would insist on keeping these words, and that if they were swept away by this Amendment I would insist upon having quantitative control.

Mr. Weitzman

The Minister has not dealt with that point. Will he direct his attention to the wording of subsection (4)? The Amendment seeks to delete the last three and a half lines. Look at the power which the Minister has got under subsection (4): Each of the Boards shall from time to time submit to the Minister proposals as to the manner in which their powers of construction, manufacture and production under the foregoing provisions of this section are to be exercised, and shall exercise those powers in accordance with those proposals as approved by the Minister with or without modification … This is a wide power under which he can approve and give directions. Why on earth does he want those last three and a half lines?

Mr. Marples

It is perfectly simple. A board will approach the Minister and make a once-for-all proposal—"We want to manufacture some vehicles". It may be agreed at the time and the board may say that it will approach the Minister again if it wishes to modify the arrangement. If it does not come back to the Minister and the Minister wishes the initiative—

Mr. Weitzman

It is topsy-turvy.

Mr. Marples

No, not a bit of it. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill.

Mr. Weitzman

I cannot help it if I was not selected.

Mr. Marples

The Minister is given power to impose on the boards whatever he thinks is right and proper from a manufacturing point of view. This replaces the previous rigid restrictions on quantity.

Mr. Frank McLeavy (Bradford, East)

I think that the Minister has failed to convince most hon. Members on both sides of the House. What I cannot understand is this. The first part of the subsection gives to the Minister all the powers necessary to control and direct, if he so pleases, the powers of the boards relating to construction, manufacture and production. Then in the latter part of the subsection we find these words: … but the Minister may, after consultation with a Board, direct that Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved. The point that may cause some concern among hon. Members is in what circumstances could we visualise the Minister telling a board to discontinue the production or manufacture of a particular line. First, we have to bear in mind that the Minister has already approved the policy. I cannot believe that the Minister would be competent to make representations to a board as to whether it was wise or proper for the board to continue with the agreement which had been arrived at with the Minister.

If the latter part of the subsection remains in the Bill, I am concerned lest it may open the gate wide to all kinds of political and other undesirable pressure being brought upon the Minister, whoever he may be, from certain private interests which may feel that they can now extend their line of production to meet some of the requirements of the various boards. The Minister is putting himself in an extremely dangerous position.

The Minister has these tremendous powers in this Clause, and indeed throughout the Bill, and I cannot see why he wants to do something which may cause the boards to say: "We are submitting to the Minister our scheme for the manufacture of certain items. We may get his approval, but we must be very careful because in a few months' time after we have made all the preparations the Minister may say, 'I have changed my mind; you must discontinue producing this type of article'." Although the Minister talks of giving commercial freedom to these boards he is, particularly in this Clause, cramping the ability of the boards to get on with their job. I should have thought that the Minister would be well satisfied with the extensive powers which he has got in the first part of this subsection.

To include these words which we are seeking to delete would expose the Minister to Parliamentary lobbying—we all know it exists—which is very undesirable and may well react to the detriment not only of the board concerned but also of the type of transport in which it is engaged. I beg the Minister to think again and, even at this late stage, to accept the Amendment which is reasonable having regard to the powers which he already enjoys.

Mr. Mellish

In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, we shall have to take this matter to a Division.

We know that there are many hon. Members on the benches opposite who, if they had their way, would shut down all the workshops. They would concentrate on what the Parliamentary Secretary once described as "the railways just running railways, and no more". There are also on the benches opposite hon. Members who would shut down all those lines which are uneconomic, both passenger and freight. It is a policy of madness, but a policy in which the Minister has to compromise because we know that Front Benchers opposite would be under some pressure from their hon. Friends behind them.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about flexibility in giving the boards power to manufacture certain articles. He does so as if he were bestowing a great favour. Yet he inserts into this subsection words which would deter the boards from engaging in the sort of work

Division No. 163.] AYES [8.0 p.m
Agnew, Sir Peter Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Finlay, Graeme
Aitken, W. T. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Fisher, Nigel
Allason, James Cleaver, Leonard Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Arbuthnot, John Cole, Norman Foster, John
Ashton, Sir Hubert Collard, Richard Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barber, Anthony Cooke, Robert Freeth, Denzil
Barlow, Sir John Cooper, A. E. Gammans, Lady
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Corfield, F. V. Gardner, Edward
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Costain, A. P. Gibson-Watt, David
Bell, Ronald Coulson, Michael Gilmour, Sir John
Berkeley, Humphry Craddock, Sir Beresford Glover, Sir Douglas
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Goodhew, Victor
Bidgood, John C. Cunningham, Knox Gower, Raymond
Biffen, John Curran, Charles Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Biggs-Davison, John Currie, G. B. H. Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R
Bingham, R. M. Dalkeith, Earl of Green, Alan
Bishop, F. P. Dance, James Gurden, Harold
Black, Sir Cyril d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bourne-Arton, A. Desdes, W. F. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Box, Donald de Ferranti, Basil Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Boyle, Sir Edward Digby, Simon Wingfield Hay, John
Brewis, John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Doughty, Charles Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Drayson, G. B. Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) du Cann, Edward Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Bryan, Paul Duncan, Sir James Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Buck, Antony Eden, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bullard, Denys Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hinchingbrooke, Viscouut
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hirst, Geoffrey
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Errington, Sir Eric Hobson, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert Farey-Jones, F. W. Hocking, Philip N.
Chataway, Christopher Farr, John Holland, Philip
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Fell, Anthony Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

which we think they are capable of performing. If they know that the Minister has power to change his mind about proposals to which he and they may have agreed twelve months previously, that uncertainty must make their business plans very unsettled.

Whichever way one looks at it, one detects a hatred for nationalised industry. I wish the Tory Party would drop this attitude and would realise that after eleven years it is as much in its interest as it is in the interest of the Labour Party to defend nationalised transport or anything else that is owned by Britain.

We have moved from the day when even the stupid Liberals thought that anything owned by the State was controlled by the Labour Party. The Tories had that idea at one time, but I thought that they had moved away from it. This is an enterprise owned by the country. Let us give it a chance to show that it can do a first-class job. If it has adequate and efficient workshops, let us not put up stupid barriers to stop it making further progress.

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

The House divided: Ayes 224. Noes 171.

Hopkins, Alan Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Skeet, T. H. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Mawby, Ray Smithers, Peter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Hughes-Young, Michael Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Speir, Rupert
Hulbert, Sir Norman Mills, Stratton Stevens, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark Montgomery, Fergus Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Stodart, J. A.
James, David Morrison, John Storey, Sir Samuel
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nabarro, Gerald Studholme, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Noble, Michael Tapsell, Peter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Taylor, Frank, (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Teeling, Sir William
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Temple, John M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Osborn, John (Hallam) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Kerby, Capt. Henry Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Page, Graham (Crosby) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Kimball, Marcus Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Kirk, Peter Peel, John Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Lagden, Godfrey Peyton, John Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pilkington, Sir Richard Turner, Colin
Leather, E. H. C. Pitman, Sir James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Leburn, Gilmour Pitt, Miss Edith Vane, W. M. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pott, Percivall Walder, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Wall, Patrick
Lindsay, Sir Martin Prior, J. M. L. Ward, Dame Irene
Linstead, Sir Hugh Pym, Francis Webster, David
Litchfield, Capt. John Quennell, Miss J. M. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Longden, Gilbert Rawlinson, Peter Whitelaw, William
Loveys, Walter H. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
McAdden, Stephen Rees, Hugh Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
MacArthur, Ian Renton, David Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
McLaren, Martin Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Ridsdale, Julian Wise, A. R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Rippon, Geoffrey Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
McMaster, Stanley R. Roots, Wlliam Woodhouse, C. M.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Woollam, John
Maddan, Martin Russell, Ronald Worsley, Marcus
Maginnis, John E. Scott-Hopkins, James
Markham, Major Sir Frank Sharples, Richard TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Shaw, M. Mr. Batsford and
Marshall, Douglas Shepherd, William Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Ainsley, William Fletcher, Eric King, Dr. Horace
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Lawson, George
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Awbery, Stan Forman, J. C. Lipton, Marcus
Bacon, Miss Alice Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Loughlin, Charles
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Galpern, Sir Myer Lubbock, Eric
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Benson, Sir George Ginsburg, David MacColl, James
Blackburn, F. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. McInnes, James
Blyton, William Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. McKay, John (Wallsend)
Boardman, H. Gunter, Ray Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.) McLeavy, Frank
Bowles, Frank Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Boyden, James Hannan, William Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Brockway, A. Fenner Harper, Joseph Manuel, Archie
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hayman, F. H. Mapp, Charles
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Mason, Roy
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Herbison, Miss Margaret Mayhew, Christopher
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mellish, R. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hilton, A. V. Mendelson, J. J.
Cronin, John Holman, Percy Millan, Bruce
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Holt, Arthur Mitchison, G. R.
Darling, George Houghton, Douglas Monslow, Walter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hoy, James H. Moody, A. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Moyle, Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Mulley, Frederick
Deer, George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oliver, G. H.
Delargy, Hugh Hunter, A. E. Oram, A. E.
Dempsey, James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Oswald, Thomas
Diamond, John Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Padley, W. E.
Dodds, Norman Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Pargiter, G. A.
Donnelly, Desmond Janner, Sir Barnett Parker, John
Driberg, Tom Jeger, George Paton, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Pavitt, Laurence
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Peart, Frederick
Fernyhough, E. Kelley, Richard Pentland, Norman
Finch, Harold Kenyon, Clifford Plummer, Sir Leslie
Fitch, Alan Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Popplewell, Ernest
Prentice, R. E. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Watkins, Tudor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Small, William Weitzman, David
Proctor, W. T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Weils, Percy (Faversham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Snow, Julian Whitlock, William
Randall, Harry Sorensen, R. W. Wilkins, W. A.
Rankin, John Spriggs, Leslie Willey, Frederick
Redhead, E. C. Stonehouse, John Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Reid, William Stones, William Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Taverne, D. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Robertson, John (Paisley) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Winterbottom, R. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Thornton, Ernest Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Ross, William Thorpe, Jeremy Woof, Robert
Short, Edward Tomney, Frank Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Wade, Donald
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wainwright, Edwin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Warbey, William Mir. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.
Mr. Marples

I beg to move, in page 13, line 21. at the end to insert: (5) Without prejudice to so much of subsection (1) of this section as restricts the Board's powers, a Board shall not have power to manufacture, otherwise than for purposes of research or development, road vehicles, bodies or chassis for road vehicles or major components of road vehicles. This subsection shall not come into force as respects the Railways Board until the expiration of the period of three years from the vesting date, so, however, that if it appears to the Minister that that Board can properly terminate the activities restricted by this subsection before then, he may direct that for the period of three years there shall be substituted such shorter period as may be specified in the direction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

I suggest that it might be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 13, line 46, at end insert:

(7) For the purposes of this subsection— body", in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body-structure includes that framework; chassis" means—

  1. (a) in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached is distinct from the body-structure, that framework together with the complement of major components required in order to construct a road vehicle on that framework, or
  2. (b) in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body-structure, the complement of major components required in order to complete that body-structure, when new, as a road vehicle;
major component" means the complete power unit, complete transmission system, complete suspension system, complete steering gear, complete braking system or complete axle of a vehicle; manufacture", in relation to the body of a road vehicle and in relation to the

chassis of a road vehicle where the framework to which the major components are attached is distinct from the body-structure, includes the assembly of the parts of the body or, as the case may be, of the parts of the chassis for the purpose of constructing a new body or, as the case may be, a new chassis: road vehicle" includes any vehicle designed to be used both as railway rolling stock and on roads.

Mr. Marples

Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that would be convenient because the Amendment in line 46 is consequential.

The purpose of these Amendments is to prevent the four statutory boards from manufacturing road vehicles—that means bodies, chassis and major components for road vehicles also—except for purposes of research and development.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. There is a good deal of conversation going on and I cannot hear the Minister.

Mr. Marples

This restriction will apply from the outset to the London Board, the Docks Board and to the Inland Waterways Authority, which in any case will not inherit any such manufacturing activities. The four new statutory boards are in a different practical position from the B.T.C. as regards the manufacture of commercial road vehicles. On vesting day—1st January, 1948—the Commission took over three companies—Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited, Eastern Coach Works Limited, and Star Bodies Limited. These companies built road motor bodies and chassis. There was also some small capacity in the railway workshops for road vehicle manufacture, such as chassis and bodies.

The situation under the Bill is significantly different. The main road motor vehicle manufacturing capacity of the Commission—that is, the three companies I have mentioned—does not go to any of the four statutory boards but to the Holding Company. Therefore, the Docks Board, the London Board and the Inland Waterways Authority will inherit no road motor vehicle manufacturing capacity or activity whatsoever. The Railways Board will inherit a very small commercial vehicle body making capacity concentrated almost entirely in two railway workshops—Wolverton and Temple Mills. The output is about 200 bodies and trailers a year. The value is about £77,000. About 70 people are employed. There is no need or justification to give the four statutory boards powers to manufacture commercial road vehicles. It is not their job and, except for a small capacity in the two railway workshops I have mentioned—Wolverton and Temple Mills—they do not engage in this work, nor is it likely that they would wish to do so.

Under the Amendment we allow three years during which the small road vehicle manufacturing capacity in the railways can be run down. In 1947 they had this restriction on them. They could not sell to outside bodies and they also had a quantitative restriction. As we discussed on the last Amendment, we have now swept away the quantitative restriction and replaced it by Ministerial direction and control. We are perpetuating what was in the 1947 Act, namely, that they cannot manufacture outside the four statutory boards and the Holding Company. They can manufacture for each other but not outside, either in the open market or for export. We do not wish in any circumstances to stop any of the boards manufacturing for development and research. One example is the road railer. The railways should be free to try to develop any prototype they can which will bring business to them, but we do not think that they should engage in manufacturing any items.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Strauss

We want a further explanation of the Amendment. The Minister has not fully disclosed the situation which the Amendment involves. As I understand it, if the Amendment is accepted, the three small companies—Star Bodies Limited, Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. and the Eastern Coach Works Ltd., will not be able to carry on in the future as they are at the moment.

Mr. Marples

The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point. At present there is a quota on those three companies. They can manufacture only up to a certain number. That is the first restriction on them under the 1947 Act. In addition, they can manufacture only for their own use. They cannot sell in the private market, nor can they export. They are subject to those two limitations. The Amendment seeks to preserve the second limitation—that is to say, they must sell to other boards within the nationalised transport sector and not in the private market or for export. We have removed the quantitative restriction and replaced it by a Ministerial direction under the previous Amendment.

Mr. Strauss

The Amendment clearly states that a Board shall not have power to manufacture, otherwise than for purposes of research or development, road vehicles, bodies or chassis for road vehicles … I draw attention to the words "shall not have power". At present there is power to manufacture under a quota system.

Mr. Marples

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, in which case I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause deals with the boards—that is, the Railways Board, the London Board, the Inland Waterways Authority and the Docks Board. The three companies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred do not come under those four boards. Therefore, they are not dealt with in this Clause. They are dealt with in Clause 29, because they go to the Holding Company. The activities of those three companies are regulated by Clause 29, not by Clause 13.

Mr. Strauss

I understood that the position of these three companies was to be altered. I thought that this was the Amendment which effected that alteration. My authority was The Times, which contained a news item the other day that these three companies, under an Amendment put forward by the Minister of Transport, were to be further restricted beyond the restrictions at present imposed upon them. Indeed, The Times said that this was a surrender to Conservative back bench pressure. It seemed to me from this Amendment and from others that the position of these three companies was being changed materially. If we are told that their position will be exactly the same and that they will have the same restricted freedom in the future as they have today, either under this Amendment or under Amendments which the Minister may move to Clause 29, we need not discuss the matter further.

In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary strongly defended the three companies and said that they should be allowed to maintain their present position. I invite hon. Members to look at column 982. We had a long argument about this. The Parliamentary Secretary was very outspoken. He resisted the pressure of some of his hon. Friends, which appeared to want to curtail the limited freedom which these three companies have. The Parliamentary Secretary made out a very good case. We accepted it. His hon. Friends retreated.

It seems to us that the Government have had second thoughts and that the position of these three small companies, which do a very good job of work, is to be restricted and altered as a result of the Amendment. If I am wrong about that, I accept the Minister's correction. I do not understand why the Amendment is necessary. Why was it not already covered in the provisions of Clause 13 as it stood when we discussed it in Committee? Is this a drafting Amendment? Does it formalise something which has been understood? Does it correct an error in the Bill as it stood, or does it make an alteration in the powers of manufacture set out in the Bill as it was first printed? May we have the situation clarified? Is the position of the three companies being altered under this Amendment or under Amendments to Clause 29 which will later be moved?

Mr. Millan

There is considerable confusion about this matter. The Minister has said that the Amendment deals specifically with some railway workshops which have been doing a certain amount of manufacturing of this sort. We strenuously object to the Amendment even from that point of view, but there is also the point Which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised about these very important companies which come under the Holding Company.

The Minister said something which was very surprising, that we have already removed all the restrictions from these three companies which are under the Holding Company. But subsequently he said that the Clause deals not with the Holding Company, but only with the four statutory boards. If the Clause deals only with the four statutory boards—I can see that that may well be so—the Minister must explain how the powers of the three small companies which come under the Holding Company have been extended by the Bill, because there is nothing in Clause 29 which removes, for example, the quotas.

There was a good deal of discussion in Committee upstairs about the quota system under the 1947 Act. It is not the least surprising that at that time those of us who were members of the Committee felt that we were dealing with these three companies under Clause 13. We are, therefore, rather surprised to be told that Clause 13 does not deal with these three companies at all. If it does not, can the Minister explain in what part of the Bill the quota restrictions have been removed, because there is nothing in Clause 29 about it? It is important that that matter should be cleared up.

I repeat that we very much object in principle to what the Minister is doing with regard to the railway workshops. If these workshops can have the power of research and development, why cannot they have powers of construction? If the railway workshops, under the Railways Board, can have powers of research and development, cannot the Government at least give the production rights to the three companies under the Holding Company? It would be extremely undesirable if they were placed in the position at the end of the research and development stage of neither being able to manufacture themselves nor given the manufacturing rights of the three companies under the Holding Company. That would be at least some amelioration of the position, although it would not be completely satisfactory because we on this side see no reason why the full powers should not rest with the Railways Board, or, for that matter, with any of the other boards.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft)

I am not sure what is happening, but, as I understand, under this Clause the limitations of the quota will be taken off the Eastern Coach Works Ltd. and the other companies and then in Clause 29, on an Amendment which is still to be considered, fresh limitations will be imposed.

I think that the removal of the quotas is a very good thing. It will mean that the bus manufacturing companies will not be governed in the way that they are governed at the moment to make either just chassis or just bodies but that if, in future, they wish to make what is known as an integrated vehicle they will be able to do so. From that point of view, the removal of the quotas will be welcomed.

I do not think that I should be in order at this stage in discussing an Amendment to Clause 29, but I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend whether Clause 13, as it stands, deals with these three companies or whether they are completely covered by Clause 29.

Mr. Marples

I should like to ask leave to speak again.

Clause 13 applies only to the Railways Board, the Inland Waterways Authority, the London Board and the Docks Board. It does not apply to the Holding Company. The Holding Company comes under Clause 29, and the list of companies whose shares it holds is in Part IV, List A on pages 105 and 106 of the Bill. It will be seen that Star Bodies Ltd., Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. and Eastern Coach Works Ltd. are dealt with in this list. I tried to explain that what the British Transport Commission holds is divided between Clauses 13 and 29. Any points which affect Star Bodies Ltd. in detail should be raised on Clause 29. I assure the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that there is nothing in Clause 13 which affects the three companies which I have mentioned. They are dealt with under Clause 29.

Clause 13 and the Amendment restrict manufacture. There is no road vehicle manufacturing in inland waterways now and there is none in the docks, and I do not think there are any motor body or chassis manufactured anywhere except in the railway workshops which have a very small manufacturing unit, the details of which I gave. It is proposed that the workshops shall cease that manufacture and they are given three years to run down that manufacture, which is infinitesimal. We think that British Railways should devote themselves in their workshops to making equipment for the railways, not equipment for the roads. That is our principle. That is what we believe. I have not sought to hide it. That is what the Amendment refers to.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

Does not the Minister trust Dr. Beeching? He has given him a large salary and instructions to run the railways on a commercial basis. Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to run a private company with the sort of limitations which he is seeking to impose on the new railway authority? It seems that this is a case of taking a very large hammer to smash a small nut, a nut which may help to improve the railways' finances, although, perhaps, in only a small way.

Why go to all this trouble to eliminate an activity which might possibly be helpful? I do not suggest, as some hon Members on this side have suggested, that there is a great future in making vehicles or wagons for export. I am sure that that is a very difficult job in any case. The Minister is going to the other extreme and being quite absurd in the extent to which he is trying to limit the activities. If very little activity is being carried on which will be curtailed by the Amendment, does he really need to put this into the Bill to stop it? The Minister is full of powers to himself. Why does he need to write something else into the Bill?

The party opposite, pretends to be in favour of competition and of bringing healthy commercial ideas to the running of the railways. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite have gone right over to pure doctrinaire dogma. They are not using their common sense as businessmen in this matter. Does the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) wish to intervene?

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

I hope to speak.

Mr. Holt

I know that the hon. Member is interested in business matters and has strong views about these things. We will be interested to hear him defend the Government's attitude on this kind of thing. As far as I can see, it is entirely without reason.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Cooper

Far from us on this side not thinking about these matters on a businesslike basis, that is the very thing that we are trying to do. We would all agree that an industry which depends upon efficiency and competitive ability, and which, therefore, must have a large production unit, is the motor car and motor vehicle manufacturing industry. To permit the continuance of these three little companies, which produce, I believe, something like 0.5 per cent. of our heavy vehicles, is ridiculous.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Cooper

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) made that very point.

Mr. Holt

Does the hon. Member think that Dr. Beeching is incapable of looking at this problem and of deciding on his own whether this work should be cut out or developed without having it written into the Bill? That is my question.

Mr. Cooper

I do not believe that under existing law Dr. Beeching has power to close down anything without coming to the Minister for prior approval. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It might have escaped the notice of hon. Members opposite that the 1947 Act laid strict obligations upon the various parts of this nationalised undertaking. There is nothing new in the way of Parliament imposing restrictions on any form of nationalised body.

One might equally ask the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) whether, when the Labour Party was putting through Parliament all its nationalisation Acts. it did not trust the people whom it put into power. Of course the Labour Party trusted them, but Parliament is quite right, and has a duty, to impose limitations upon the chairmen of nationalised boards.

Mr. Weitzman

Either the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) was not present earlier or he was not listening to the debate. Every word which he has said had nothing to do with the Amendment. As I understand—I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the Amendment has nothing to do with the Holding Company.

Mr. Marples indicated assent.

Mr. Weitzman

It merely has to do with that small amount of business that the railways still have in, so to speak, the art of manufacture. I agree that it is absurd to put this restriction into the Bill and that the existing power of the railways in this respect should remain.

1 rise for one reason. I listened with great interest to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) concerning the fruits of research. What will happen to the fruits of research by the board in the railways' small way? The Minister said not a word about this. Are we not to have the benefit of his opinion about it?

Major Sir Frank Markham (Buckingham)

I wish only to put two points to my right hon. Friend the Minister. If I understood aright, his statement a few minutes ago was to the effect that the ultimate aim of all this is to put most railway carriage and wagon construction work into the British Railways workshops and most of the road vehicle work into companies listed on page 104 of the Bill. If this is so, does it not mean a great departure from existing practice in that, for example, the current quite moderate programme of road haulage vehicles will be taken away from Wolverton and placed elsewhere?

I should like an answer, if possible, before we reach a Division on the Amendment.

Mr. Prior rose

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. We are not in Committee.

Mr. Ross

I want to know why these words are necessary. This is the action of a league of terrified private enterprise experts. Subsection (1) of the Clause defines the power to manufacture, and ends with these words: the Boards shall not have power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, maintain or repair anything not required for any of those purposes. Subsection (4) states that Each of the Boards shall from time to time submit to the Minister proposals…and shall exercise those powers in accordance with those proposals as approved by the Minister with or without modification; but the Minister may, after consultation with a Board, direct that Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved. Now the Minister comes along with this new restriction to be added after those. Without prejudice to these limitations he makes a further specific limitation. Why does he do it? First, it is unnecessary; secondly, what are they frightened of? This is the glorious party which wants competition and wants every idea and everything done. There are the terrors of the Common Market in front of us and we have to be able to gird up our spirits and use all our research, brains and everything else. But some of the boards must do so. That is what it amounts to. I think that the hon. Gentleman was right. He knows quite well that in relation to many other aspects of Government we have research development teams which have developed something worth while, but by this dogma they are not to be allowed to exploit something that they have discovered in the processes of their development.

This is what is behind it. Hon. Members opposite have a lot to say about nationalisation and nationalised industries, and we hear a lot about the £140 million capital development programme. But they do love nationalised industry as a customer. Where would private enterprise be without that £140 million? They are getting most of it. Hon. Members opposite are profiting out of that, and the Minister knows it. No doubt when he proceeds to another job he may well take an interest in some company that will profit out of this development. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is not an aspersion on the Minister. This is the natural way of life of hon. Members opposite.

Sir F. Markham

That contains the suggestion that the Minister's present policy is influenced by some further payments that he will be getting, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Ross

If I had meant that the Minister would have been the first to object.

This is the natural way of life for them. They want the nationalised industries as attractive customers, but to limit the amount of money that they can spend in relation to their own manufactures. They must be able to find a customer even within this country or outwith this country. That is what it mounts up to. So we do not get this once. We get it three times and the Minister confuses the issue by talking about three companies that are not even mentioned in the Clause. No wonder his hon. Friend and everyone else is confused.

We have to start this business by knowing the Minister. When the Minister is on weak ground he will talk about everything except the Amendment. He has not told us why the third underlining of this power is necessary. Hon. Members are limited on Report stage to making one speech, but the Minister can make more than one because he has to explain his Bill to the House. I hope that he will make an effort to explain just why this is necessary. Or will he not, at this stage, have sufficient courage to say that this is completely unnecessary, that all the back benchers who came to him with stories about the terrors of the Railways Board are quite wrong, and withdraw his own Amendment?

Mr. Marples

I hate to ask the leave of the House for the third time, but I should like to answer very shortly if I may. The railway workshops employ about 110,000 people. The £140 million which is spent on capital development does not go to private firms—certainly not to any firm with which I was ever associated. A lot of it goes to the workshops to pay the wages of the 110,000. I have always taken the view that the workshops should concentrate on railway manufacture and railway repair work and repair work on the manufacture of railway motor vehicles and chassis. That is exactly what the British Transport Commission has done. It has produced £77,000 worth of vehicles a year and employed 70 men only on motor vehicles.

Sir F. Markham

I challenge those figures. I believe that there is at least that number of men working at the workshops at Wolverton on road motor vehicles.

Mr. Marples

Not on the railway work, I quite agree, but road vehicles. This is on a puny scale. That is what has actually been happening. I believe that the railway workshops should manufacture for the railways and repair for the railways and I do not think they should indulge in the road work. It will be phased off over three years and the 70 men employed on this at Wolverton will be looked after.

Several Hon. Members rose

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. Only one hon. Member may have the Floor at one time.

Mr. Popplewell

Can the Minister say whether those 70 men he referred to have shown a loss on their work or a profit?

Mr. Marples

It is very difficult to find out in workshop costings, but that is exactly what has happened. It is not easy. There was an overall loss of £150 million. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault was that?"] I do not know whose fault it was.

Mr. Ross

It was the Minister's.

Mr. Marples

But that is what has happened. It will be phased off over three years so that no hardship will be involved.

Sir F. Markham

This represents a major change, so far as I know. I have not heard about it. The railways have been making or repairing their own road vehicles for years—almost since the motor car was first introduced. As I understand it, this is a major change which affects my constituency, and unless the Minister of Transport can give us a better explanation than he has up till now I shall have no alternative but to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Marples

Wolverton is in my hon. Friend's constituency and I can understand that he would be concerned about any disturbance there, but when he says this is a major change of policy I must point out to him that the value of the output is £77,000 and there are 70 staff employed—

Mr. Ross

What is the Minister worrying about then?

Mr. Marples

—out of 500,000 men altogether.

Mr. Ross

What is the Minister worrying about then?

Mr. Marples

The hon. Member can have which argument he likes, but he cannot have both. One cannot say it is both tiny and a major change.

Sir F. Markham

I have already said that I believe the Minister—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. We are not in Committee and the hon. Member cannot keep getting up to speak.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order. The Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and the hon. Member is not getting up to speak again, so I do not think he contravened the rules of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has got up several times. One cannot behave on Report in the same way as in Committee.

Mr. Mellish

On a point of order. The hon. Member is challenging the figures. If we are to have an intelligent argument we had better get the figures cleared up. All the hon. Member wants to do is to have this explained. He probably knows more about it than the Minister does.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member may ask a question if the Minister gives way, but he cannot make a speech.

Sir F. Markham

I do really seek the indulgence of the Chair and of the House. So far as I am concerned, this is a new policy of British Railways. That is the first point I was putting before the House. Next, I challenge the Minister's figures. I say they do not include the full extent of the road vehicle work and the auxiliary work such as containers. The Minister has been giving figures which underestimate the production, and I do ask him to have a very good look at this pretty quickly before we get to any further stage of the Bill.

Mr. Marples

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these figures came from the British Transport Commission.] asked the Commission about it. There are 220 vehicles and 70 men, and the value of the output is £77,000. I will check it again. If I am wrong I will come to the House and say so, but I do not think I am. The original intervention of my hon. Friend was because he thought these figures referred to the manufacture of railway vehicles. I think that if he will look at HANSARD carefully in the morning he will see that that was so. I think that is right. I am quite certain, and if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is against me, I know that I must be right.

Mr. Ross rose

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples

I was asked what would happen to the three companies in the Holding Company dealt with in Clause 29. I was asked if they could do this work. The answer is "Yes". Any company can interchange manufactures within the nationalised transport section. If a particular vehicle was required the boards under Clause 29, could go to the three companies and they could manufacture for them. I think that I have now answered most of the points. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I may not have answered them satisfactorily, but I have answered them. This is one of those things on which we must agree to differ. I have explained the purpose of the Amendment quite clearly. The Opposition disagree with that purpose, but at least they know what the Amendment is about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Willis.

Division No. 164.] AYES [8.50 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Berkeley, Humphry Boyle, Sir Edward
Aitken, W. T. Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Brewis, John
Allason, James Bidgood, John C. Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Arbuthnot, John Biffen, John Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Bingham, R. M. Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Barber, Anthony Bishop, F. P. Bryan, Paul
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Black, Sir Cyril Buck, Antony
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bourne-Arton, A. Bullard, Denys
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Box, Donald Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Mr. Ross

Will the Minister answer my question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have called Mr. Willis.

Mr. Willis

The question I want to ask is simple. Has not the Minister, under subsection (4), the power which he is now asking for in the Amendment? I should have thought that that subsection was sufficiently all-embracing for him to control any activity of any of the boards without having to put in all this rigmarole to deal with 70 men producing £70,000 of goods. In the first place, I should have thought that when the Bill became an Act. the Minister's approval would have to be obtained to continue this activity. I may be wrong, but that seems to me to be the legal position. The Minister would then be able to say, "We give you three years to try to wind up this activity", if that is what he wants to do.

Subsection (4) of the Clause provides that Each of the Boards shall from time to time submit to the Minister proposals as to the manner in which their powers of construction, manufacture and production … are to be exercised … I assume, therefore, that to make the slightest change a board would have to approach the Minister. There seems to be no reason why we should have all this rigmarole. I cannot understand why the Minister insists on fighting over this.

I do not want to waste the time of the House by ranging over the wider aspects of the Amendment, but from the narrow legal interpretation of the Bill I ask again whether the Minister has not the powers he requires under subsection (4) to do all the things that he told us about.

Hon. Members


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

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 173.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hobson, Sir John Peel, John
Cary, Sir Robert Hocking, Philip N. Peyton, John
Chataway, Christopher Holland, Philip Pilkington, Sir Richard
Chichester-Clark, R. Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Pitman, Sir James
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hopkins, Alan Pitt, Miss Edith
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Pott, Percivall
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Cleaver, Leonard Hughes-Young, Michael Prior, J. M. L.
Cole, Norman Hulbert, Sir Norman Pym, Francis
Collard, Richard Hutchison, Michael Clark Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooke, Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rawlinson, Peter
Cooper, A. E. James, David Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cordle, John Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rees, Hugh
Costain, A. P. Jennings, J. C. Renton, David
Coulson, Michael Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Craddock, Sir Beresford Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridsdale, Julian
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Rippon, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Knox Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Roots, William
Curran, Charles Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Currle, G. B. H. Kerby, Capt. Henry Russell, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of Kerr, Sir Hamilton Scott-Hopkins, James
Dance, James Kimball, Marcus Sharples, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kirk, Peter Shaw, M.
Deedee, W. F. Lagden, Godfrey Shepherd, William
de Ferranti, Basil Lancaster, Col. C. G. Skeet, T. H. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Leather, E. H. C. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Leburn, Gilmour Smithers, Peter
Doughty, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Drayson, G. B. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Speir, Rupert
du Cann, Edward Lindsay, Sir Martin Stevens, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James Linstead, Sir Hugh Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Litchfield, Capt. John Stodart, J. A.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Loveys, Walter H. Storey, Sir Samuel
Errington, Sir Eric Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Studholme, Sir Henry
Farey-Jones, F. W. McAdden, Stephen Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Farr, John MacArthur, Ian Tapsell, Peter
Finlay, Graeme McLaren, Martin Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Fisher, Nigel McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Teeling, Sir William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Temple, John M.
Foster, John McMaster, Stanley R. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Freeth, Denzil Maddan, Martin Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Gammans, Lady Maginnis, John E. Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gardner, Edward Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Gibson-Watt, David Marshall, Douglas Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Gilmour, Sir John Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Turner, Colin
Glover, Sir Douglas Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Goodhew, Victor Mawby, Ray Vane, W. M. F.
Gower, Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Walder, David
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Mills, Stratton Wall, Patrick
Green, Alan Montgomery, Fergus Ward, Dame Irene
Gurden, Harold More, Jasper (Ludlow) Webster, David
Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Nabarro, Gerald Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maeclesf'd) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hay, John Noble, Michael Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Wise, A. R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Woodhouse, C. M.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Osborn, John (Hallam) Woollam, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Worsley, Marcus
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Hirst, Geoffrey Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Batsford
Ainsley, William Callaghan, James Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Albu, Austen Castle, Mrs. Barbara Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Evans, Albert
Awbery, Stan Cronin, John Fernyhough, E.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Finch, Harold
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Darling, George Fitch, Alan
Benson, Sir George Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Fletcher, Eric
Blackburn, F. Davies, Harold (Leek) Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Blyton, William Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Boardman, H. Deer, George Forman, J. C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Delargy, Hugh Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Bowles, Frank Dempsey, James Galpern, Sir Myer
Boyden, James Diamond, John George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Brockway, A. Fenner Dodds, Norman Ginsburg, David
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Donnelly, Desmond Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Driberg, Tom Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Gunter, Ray Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Manuel, Archie Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Hannan, William Mapp, Charles Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Harper, Joseph Mason, Roy Small, William
Hayman, F. H. Mayhew, Christopher Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Mellish, R. J. Snow, Julian
Herbison, Miss Margaret Mendelson, J. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Millan, Bruce Spriggs, Leslie
Hilton, A. V. Mitchison, G. R. Stonehouse, John
Holman, Percy Monslow, Walter Stones, William
Holt, Arthur Moody, A. S. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Houghton, Douglas Moyle, Arthur Taverne, D.
Hoy, James H. Mulley, Frederick Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oram, A. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oswald, Thomas Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermlina)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Padley, W. E. Thornton, Ernest
Hunter, A. E. Paget, R. T. Thorpe, Jeremy
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pargiter, G. A. Tomney, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Parker, John Wade, Donald
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Paton, John Wainwright, Edwin
Janner, Sir Barnett Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Warbey, William
Jeger, George Peart, Frederick Watkins, Tudor
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Pentland, Norman Weitzman, David
Jones, Elwyn (West Harn, s.) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Popplewell, Ernest Whitlock, William
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Prentice, R. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Kelley, Richard Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Willey, Frederick
Kenyon, Clifford Proctor, W. T. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
King, Dr. Horace Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Lawson, George Randall, Harry Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Rankin, John Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Redhead, E. C. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Lipton, Marcus Reid, William Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Loughlin, Charles Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Winterbottom, R. E.
Lubbock, Eric Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Robertson, John (Paisley) Woof, Robert
MacColl, James Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
McInnes, James Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Rogers, G. H. R, (Kensington, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Ross, William Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.
MCLeavy, Frank Short, Edward
Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 28 to 31.

In view of the fact that the Guillotine will fall shortly, I wish to move the Amendment formally.

Mr. Hay

In view of the shortness of time, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has not informed the Committee of the purpose of this Amendment—

Mr. Mellish

We have not the time.

Mr. Hay

—and so it is my job to do so and also, I am afraid, to tell the Committee that we cannot advise hon. Members to accept the Amendment.

The purpose of this Amendment and the following Amendment in the names of hon. Members opposite, to leave out lines 32 to 37, is to allow a board to engage in certain trading activities. The first would be to trade in spare parts or accessories for road vehicles, petrol and oil and, secondly, to repair road vehicles and accessories for persons outside the nationalised transport undertakings. It has been argued throughout that the boards should confine their activities to what we have called the set task. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill will remember that I used that phrase frequently. We do not believe that it is any part of the job of these transport undertakings to engage in trading in spare parts, accessories for road vehicles, petrol and so on. Moreover, by the Transport Act, 1947

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Spriggs

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask that the vote be now taken?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am waiting to hear the clock strike. I have not heard it yet. As soon as I hear it I shall put the Question.

Mr. Spriggs

The clock has struck.

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

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

Division No. 165.] AYES [9.1 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Cower, Raymond Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Allason, James Grant, Rt. Hon. William Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Arbuthnot, John Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Green, Alan Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Barber, Anthony Gurden, Harold Page, Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian Hall, John (Wycombe) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Peel, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Harris, Reader (Heston) Percival, Ian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Peyton, John
Berkeley, Humphry Hay, John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bevins, Rt, Hon. Reginald Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bidgood, John C. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pitman, Sir James
Biffen, John Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pitt, Miss Edith
Bingham, R. M. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pott, Percivall
Bishop, F. P. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Powell, Rt. Hon, J. Enoch
Black, Sir Cyril Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Prior, J. M. L.
Bourne-Arton, A. Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Box, Donald Hobson, Sir John Quennell, Miss J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hocking, Philip N. Rawlinson, peter
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bromley, Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Ress, Hugh
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hopkins, Alan Rees-Davies, W. R
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Renton, David
Bryan, Paul Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Buck, Antony Hughes-Young, Michael Ridsdale, Julian
Bullard, Denys Hulbert, Sir Norman Rippon, Geoffrey
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hutchison, Michael Clark Roots, William
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cary, Sir Robert James, David Russell, Ronald
Chataway, Christopher Jennings, J. C. Scott-Hopkins, James
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Sharples, Richard
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Shaw, M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Shepherd, William
Cleaver, Leonard Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Skeet, T. H. H.
Cole, Norman Kerans, Cdr. J, S. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Collard, Richard Kerby, Capt. Henry Smithers, Peter
Cooke, Robert Kerr, Sir Hamilton Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Cooper, A. E. Kimball, Marcus Speir, Rupert
Cordle, John Kirk, Peter Stevens, Geoffrey
Corfield, F. V. Lagden, Godfrey Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Costain, A. P. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stodart, J. A.
Coulson, Michael Leather, E. H. C. Storey, Sir Samuel
Craddock, Sir Beresford Leburn, Gilmour Studholme, Sir Henry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Cunningham, Knox Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Tapsell, Peter
Curran, Charles Lindsay, Sir Martin Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Currie, G. B. H. Linstead, Sir Hugh Teeling, Sir William
Dalkeith, Earl of Litchfield, Capt. John Temple, John M.
Dance, James Loveys, Walter H. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McAdden, Stephen Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Deedes, W. F. MacArthur, Ian Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
de Ferranti, Basil McLaren, Martin Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Doughty, Charles McMaster, Stanley R. Turner, Colin
Drayson, G. B. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) van Straubenzee, W. R.
du Cann, Edward Maddan, Martin Vans, W. M. F.
Duncan, Sir James Maginnis, John E. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Markham, Major Sir Frank Walder, David
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Wall, Patrick
Errington, Sir Eric Marshall, Douglas Ward, Dame Irene
Farcy-Jones, F. W. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Webster, David
Farr, John Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Finlay, Graeme Mawby, Ray Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Fisher, Nigel Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mills, Stratton Wise, A. R.
Freeth, Denzil Montgomery, Fergus Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Gammans, Lady More, Jasper (Ludlow) Woodhouse, C. M.
Gardner, Edward Morrison, John Wollam, John
Gibson-Watt, David Nabarro, Gerald Worsley, Marcus
Gilmour, Sir John Nicholson, Sir Godfrey TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Glover, Sir Douglas Noble, Michael Mr. Chichester-Clark and
Goodhew, Victor Nugent, Rt. Hon, Sir Richard and Mr. Whitelaw.
Ainsley, William Awbery, Stan Benson, Sir George
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Blackburn, F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Blyton, William

The House divided: Ayes 218, 171.

Boardman, H. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Bowles, Frank Hunter, A. E. Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boyden, James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Randall, Harry
Brockway, A. Fenner Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Rankin, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Janner, Sir Barnett Reid, William
Callaghan, James Jeger, George Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Cronin, John Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kelley, Richard Ross, William
Darling, George Kenyon, Clifford Short, Edward
Davle8, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) King, Dr. Horace Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lawson, George Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Deer, George Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Delargy, Hugh Lipton, Marcus Small, William
Dempsey, James Loughlin, Charles Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Diamond, John Lubbock, Eric Snow, Julian
Dodds, Norman Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sorensen, R. W.
Donnelly, Desmond MacColl, James Spriggs, Leslie
Driberg, Tom McInnes, James Stonehouse, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Stones, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Evans, Albert McLeavy, Frank Taverne, D.
Fernyhough, E. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Finch, Harold Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fitch, Alan Manuel, Archie Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Fletcher, Eric Mapp, Charles Thornton, Ernest
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mason, Roy Thorpe, Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mayhew, Christopher Tomney, Frank
Forman, J. C. Mellish, R. J. Wade, Donald
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mendelson, J. J. Wainwright, Edwin
Galpern, Sir Myer Millan, Bruce Warbey, William
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mitchison, G. R. Watkins, Tudor
Ginsburg, David Monslow, Walter Weitzman, David
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moody, A. S. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Morris, John Whitlock, William
Gunter, Ray Moyle, Arthur Wilkins, W. A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mulley, Frederick Willey, Frederick
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Oram, A. E. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hannan, William Oswald, Thomas Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Harper, Joseph Padley, W. E. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hayman, F. H. Paget, R. T. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis) Pargiter, G. A. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret Parker, John Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Paton, John Winterbottom, R. E.
Hilton, A. V. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Holman, Percy Peart, Frederick Woof, Robert
Holt, Arthur Pentland, Norman Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Houghton, Douglas Plummer, Sir Leslie
Hoy, James H. Popplewell, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Prentice, R. E. Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 46, at end insert:

(7) For the purposes of this subsection— body", in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body-structure includes that framework; chassis" means—

  1. (a) in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached is distinct from the body-structure, that framework together with the complement of major components required in order to construct a road vehicle on that framework, or
  2. 364
  3. (b) in relation to a vehicle in which the framework to which the major components are attached forms an integral whole with the body-structure, the complement of major components required in order to complete that body-structure when new, as a road vehicle;
major component" means the complete power unit, complete transmission system, complete suspension system, complete steering gear, complete braking system or complete axle of a vehicle; manufacture", in relation to the body of a road vehicle and in relation to the chassis of a road vehicle where the framework to which the major components are attached is distinct from the body-structure, includes the assembly of the parts of the body or, as the case may be, of the parts of the chassis for the purpose of constructing a new body or, as the case may be, a new chassis: road vehicle" includes any vehicle designed to be used both as railway rolling Stock and on roads.—[Mr. Marples.]