§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Mapp
I beg to move, in page 44, line 23, to leave out from first "passenger" to "or" in line 24.
In moving this Amendment I wish immediately to pinpoint the matter at issue. It is not a wide point in which politics is involved. With reference to the words which we are seeking to omit from the Clause, the simple fact emerges that in the course of an ordinary day's journey the railwayman travelling on a free pass is travelling by virtue of accrued rights which he has in the service and which were underwritten, as it were, by the Guillebaud settlement. I say that in order that we should not get into an argument about the rights of these passes. But the fact is that while in law the average passenger has his or her rights in respect of an accident, the railway servant travelling in the condi- 280 tions which I have described has no such rights.
This matter was very sharply pinpointed some years ago in connection with the railway disaster at Harrow when a number of railway staff working at headquarters at Euston lost their lives, as, unfortunately, did a number of other people. The relatives of these men found that they had no legal redress. As a result of representations made by the respective unions catering for those people, a letter was written by the British Transport Commission to the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association saying what it was prepared to undertake. The letter stated:The Commission has recently had under consideration the question of liability to be accepted by them in respect of members of the staff and their dependants travelling on British Railways on free passes or free tickets. As a result it has been decided that the conditions of issue of such passes and tickets will be the same as that of privilege tickets, i.e. the Commission will accept the same liability for members of the staff and their dependants travelling on British Railways free tickets and passes as it does for members of the public.281 By omitting the words as proposed in the Amendment we are seeking to write into the Bill precisely the same legal and statutory rights in respect of railway-men travelling in these conditions as apply in other fields. I ought perhaps to add that this point was very closely dealt with in Committee and that appeals were made to the Parliamentary Secretary to omit these words. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that he had incorporated in the Clause the words used in the passenger charges scheme of 1950. But the passenger charges scheme will disappear when the Bill becomes an Act and no passenger charges scheme will then be applicable. Therefore, there is no reason to retain these words.
I have said, in effect, what the industrial practice is, and it is a good practice. I should perhaps say that in Committee the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) sought to argue, though without much conviction, that in his opinion industrial bargaining and industrial arrangements were more satisfactory in the long run than would be the writing into the Bill of the common and elementary rights involving the normal statutory protection in the circumstances which I have described.
I propose to bring my remarks to a close very shortly because we are working against the Guillotine. I think it would be fair to summarise the position by saying that in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary had been speaking to an awkward brief. I must say that he carried his bat well, but in the last twenty minutes or so of the discussion the Minister himself came in. The right hon. Gentleman was alerted to the nature of the discussion and of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who felt as we had felt that this was a point which the Minister could concede without any difficulty at all. My right hon. Friend spotlighted the fact that half a million railwaymen feel very alarmed about this matter and wish to have written into the Bill a statutory right which industrially they achieved in 1954 or 1955.
The Minister having come into the Committee Room and having been alerted about the depth of feeling on the 282 matter, and having rejected the Amendment, said:I will, however, consider the arguments further, because I can see that hon. Gentlemen opposite feel strongly about this. I assure the Committee that I will look at these arguments carefully, and if further arguments are put to me by way of letter or in any other way, I will consider those also before Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 20th March, 1962; c. 1388.]We on our side of the Committee felt that that was at least a step forward. I think it would be fair to remind the Minister that I know that within two or three days the three railway unions, in one form or another, sent very firm communications to the right hon. Gentleman confirming what I have been saying to the Committee. I feel that at this stage the least which the Committee can do is to accept the general practice and to write into the Bill words giving the railwayman when travelling the same rights that ordinary passengers are given.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)
As the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has said, we dealt at some length with this issue in Committee upstairs. As he has also said, my right hon. Friend the Minister gave an undertaking on 20th March that he would look at the matter again. As the hon. Gentleman has further told the Committee, we have received correspondence from the trade unions who have urged that we should adopt the proposal put forward by the Opposition on that occasion.
It is important that we should understand what the proposal really is. The effect of the Amendment now moved, which is identical with that moved in Committee upstairs, would be to prevent the Board from limiting its liability in respect of the death of any passenger who travelled on the railways on a free pass or who suffered bodily injury while so travelling. That is the effect of the Amendment, and that is what the argument is about.
I wish to tell the Committee that we have been carefully into this matter again, but that I am afraid we have come to the conclusion that we were right in resisting the Amendment at the earlier stage and that we must advise the Committee to do the same this afternoon. There are, as I said when dealing 283 with the Amendment upstairs, a number of domestic complications which would arise if we were to accept this Amendment, and I should like to deal with two of them.
As the hon. Gentleman has explained to the Committee, the origin of the words which now appear in Clause 43 is the passenger charges scheme established by the British Transport Commission as long ago as 1950. Since that charges scheme will disappear under the reorganisation, it is necessary to reproduce its essential provisions in the Clause. The provisions which we reproduce exclude the case of railway men travelling on free passes. As I told the Committee upstairs, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, since 1955, and despite the position under the charges scheme, the British Transport Commission has, as an act of grace, accepted this liability.
Accordingly, the Commission feels—I think that it is only right that we should agree—that there is no compelling reason why the statutory situation should be altered and something being done by the Commission at present as an act of grace should be given permanent form in the Bill. That is the first of the domestic complications.
§ Mr. Loughlin
I wanted an explanation of the expression "act of grace". Is the action of the British Transport Commission a result of negotiations with the trade unions? Is that what the hon. Gentleman means by an act of grace?
§ Mr. Hay
The second domestic complication is that, if the Amendment were accepted, we should be dealing only with people travelling on the railways on free passes. There would undoubtedly be repercussions among employees of the 284 the other boards. I will take one example. Some employees of the other boards might have the right to travel free on buses provided by, for example, the London Board. There would be an extraordinary situation. In law, following the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, so far as road vehicles are concerned, all third party liabilities, including liabilities to passengers, have to be covered by insurance. There are, however, two exceptions. The first is liabilities to employees, and these are usually covered by employer's liability insurance. The second exception is liabilities to passengers who are not paying fares or not travelling at the request of employers.
Thus, on the buses, employees who travel on a free pass are not insured by their employers, and the employers are under no legal obligation by Act of Parliament to insure their employees. Nevertheless, if we were to accept the Amendment, in respect of rail travel there would be a statutory liability to insure. To illustrate what would then be the situation, I will take this example. A motor man working for London Transport takes his children on Sunday, his day off, to Trafalgar Square to feed the pigeons. He decides to go back home to Harrow making use of his free pass. If he takes a No. 13 bus from Trafalgar Square to Baker Street, he is not covered by insurance so long as he is travelling on the bus. If at Baker Street he boards a tube train to go to Harrow, he is covered, if the Amendment is accepted. There will be the anomaly that, so long as he travels on the bus, he will not be covered legally, whereas, so long as he travels by train, he will be covered legally.
We cannot accept the Amendment because of those two domestic complications which I have explained.
§ Mr. Hay
No doubt he would, if he wanted to be covered completely. Nevertheless, he might want to see some of the sights of London from the top deck of a bus. I do not know.
We have looked at this matter extremely carefully, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be 285 right to put in an Act of Parliament what is the already existing practice of the Commission, which I feel sure the Railways Board would wish to continue in future. I think that we should be well advised to leave the situation as it is. The practical aspect requires that railwaymen and other employees of the boards should have a reasonable chance of being covered. In practice they will be. I do not propose to ask the Committee to write into the Bill a legal obligation on the boards so to provide.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)
I cannot imagine that that is the last word of the hon. Gentleman or his Minister on this subject. It may be the final word in this Committee, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity in another place to look at the matter again.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was one of the most "phoney" we have yet heard. He made a great point of travelling on free passes. When railwaymen put in an application for increased wages, it is always put as a set-off against their application that they have the perquisite of free travel. This is, and always has been, taken into consideration by the arbitrators on any wages claim. It is nonsense for the Minister to say that railway employees do not pay for their free pass travel. In effect, they are paying for it weekly out of their wages. Surely, the Minister will not be so hidebound as to say that ex gratia payments are now being made and that is an end of it. The British Transport Commission has accepted an obligation towards anyone travelling on a free pass because its employees pay for their passes in their wage rates. There is no question of it being something to which they are not entitled.
The hon. Gentleman said that, if we accepted the Amendment, the liability accepted by the Commission would lose its ex gratia character and the effect would be to remove the limit on what might be the new Railways Board's liability. Surely, if the men are paying for their travel weekly out of their wages, they are entitled to the usual common law damages which any citizen could have by an exercise of his rights.
286 It is said that domestic complications would arise if this facility were granted because of the effect on the employees of other boards. The hon. Gentleman instanced the buses. Travelling on the buses of the London Transport Executive, we see notices advertising vacancies for employees and in those advertisements there is always a statement about free travel facilities. These facilities are always taken into account. It is misleading to advertise the free travel facilities if no compensation is payable in the event of injury. If we accept the Minister's argument, it amounts almost to a confidence trick.
The hon. Gentleman knows that there is very deep feeling among the employees and their trade unions about this matter. They feel that this is a slight upon them, justified on the basis of their free travel facilities which, nevertheless, are not really a perquisite at all. Free travel facilities have always been used by the railways as part of their argument in dealing with railway men's wages. We feel keenly about it. We want the Minister to undertake to reconsider the matter before the Bill goes further. The men are deeply disturbed about it. The Government cannot have it both ways. They must not talk with two voices. I urge the hon. Gentleman to say now that he will look at the matter again before the Bill goes to another place.
§ Mr. Steele
The Parliamentary Secretary has again told us why we should not have this provision in the Bill, but he gave us an added reason this afternoon, which we did not hear in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary said today that, irrespective of the fact that there is no legal obligation upon the new Railways Board, should anyone travelling on a free pass suffer death or injury from an accident the Board would accept liability. This is absolutely clear. Therefore, should the Prime Minister, an ex-director of the old Great Western Railway, be involved in a railway accident whilst travelling from Euston to Carstairs and the as a result, his widow would receive compensation, although he was travelling on a free pass. This is all clear, but, although it is accepted that this would be the position, it is argued that the Bill must not state that this obligation would be accepted.
287 The Parliamentary Secretary said that if we do this for railwaymen we must do it for employees of bus companies. Why not? My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) put a very pertinent point to the Parliamentary Secretary. He rightly said that this is not an act of grace. This is an agreement which has been negotiated between the trade unions and the British Transport Commission. It is now up to the trade unions concerned to negotiate another agreement with the bus companies. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement is an invitation for them to do so.
However, there is a difference between the two employments, because a railwayman is limited in the number of free passes which he can enjoy. He receives only a small number in one year. A person working for the bus organisation in London has a pass enabling him to travel on the buses at any time. The other person who gets a free pass on the railway is the man whose function it is to go from station to station for relief work. It is part of his work to travel as a passenger. He is in the same category as the man driving the train. He has to be on the train.
The Parliamentary Secretary, with his good legal brain, is satisfied with this argument, but in justice is does not satisfy the House of Commons. If the British Transport Commission at present recognises the obligation, there is no reason why it cannot be stated in the Bill. This has nothing to do with bus companies. The bus companies and their employees do not have this system, but people working on the railways do. Therefore, why should it not be stated in the Bill? In any case, whether it is in the Bill or not, it is up to the employees of the bus companies to ensure that their trade unions now negotiate the same agreement as the railways have with their employees.
|Division No. 161.]||AYES||[5.56 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Bell, Ronald||Bourne-Arton, A.|
|Allason, James||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Box, Donald|
|Arbuthnot, John||Berkeley, Humphry||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Boyle, Sir Edward|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bidgood, John C.||Braine, Bernard|
|Barber, Anthony||Biffen, John||Brewis, John|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bingham, R. M.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Barter, John||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Batsford, Brian||Bishop, F. P.||Brooman-White, R.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Black, Sir Cyril||Brown, Alan (Tottenham)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Bossom, Clive||Browne, Percy (Torrington)|
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newing-ton and Hackney, North)
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has just referred to the good legal brain of the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to bear with me while I look at the Clause again and try to understand what the Parliamentary Secretary's answer means because, although I am a lawyer, I cannot understand it.
The Amendment seeks to delete the wordsother than a passenger travelling on a free pass".I understand that. If that phrase were deleted, subsection (7) would read:The Boards shall not carry passengers by rail on terms or conditions which—(a) purport, whether directly on indirectly, to exclude or limit their liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any passenger …We are dealing with the boards' liability. If the Amendment were accepted, its effect would be that the boards would be liable in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any passenger, whether he was fare paying or not. My hon. Friends and I are arguing that nothing should be done, directly or indirectly, to exclude or limit liability. This is plain common sense, untrammelled by any reference to bus No. 13 or "enjoying the sights of London". That has nothing whatever to do with it.
I had always thought that the Minister was very fair in such matters. I ask him to look at the plain meaning of this subsection. It means nothing like the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. I suggest that the Amendment should be accepted.
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 260, Noes 195.
|Buck, Antony||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Bullard, Denys||Hiley, Joseph||Peyton, John|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Pilkington, Sir Richard|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Pott, Percivall|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Chataway, Christopher||Hocking, Philip N.||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Holland, Philip||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Pym, Francis|
|Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Cole, Norman||Hughes-Young, Michael||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Collard, Richard||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Rees, Hugh|
|Cooke, Robert||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Renton, David|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||James, David||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Cordle, John||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Corfield, F. V.||Jennings, J. C.||Rippon, Geoffrey|
|Costain, A. P.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)|
|Coulson, Michael||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Roots, William|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Kerans, Cdr. J. S,||Russell, Ronald|
|Cunningham, Knox||Kerby, Capt. Henry||St. Clair, M.|
|Curran, Charles||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kimball, Marcus||Seymour, Leslie|
|Dance, James||Kirk, Peter||Sharples, Richard|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kitson, Timothy||Shaw, M.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lagden, Godfrey||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfd & Chiswick)|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Smithers, Peter|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Leather, E. H. C.||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Doughty, Charles||Leburn, Gilmour||Speir, Rupert|
|Drayson, G. B.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|du Cann, Edward||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Duncan, Sir James||Lilley, F. J. P.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Lindsay, Sir Martin||Stodart, J. A.|
|Eden, John||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Longbottom, Charles||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Longden, Gilbert||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Loveys, Walter H.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Farr, John||McAdden, Stephen||Temple, John M.|
|Fell, Anthony||MacArthur, Ian||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Finlay, Graeme||McLaren, Martin||Thomas Peter (Conway)|
|Fisher, Nigel||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Foster, John||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Freeth, Denzil||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||McMaster, Stanley R.||Turner, Colin|
|Gammans, Lady||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Gardner, Edward||Maddan, Martin||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Maginnis, John E.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Maitland, Sir John||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Gilmour, Sir John||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest||Walder, David|
|Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Marshall, Douglas||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Goodhew, Victor||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Wall, Patrick|
|Gower, Raymond||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William||Mawby, Ray||Webster, David|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Green, Alan||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Mills, Stratton||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Montgomery, Fergus||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Wise, A. R.|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Morrison, John||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Nabarro, Gerald||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Noble, Michael||Woollam, John|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero (Macclesf'd)||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Worsley, Marcus|
|Harvle Anderson, Miss||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Hay, John||Osborn, John (Hallam)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Ainsley, William||Bacon, Miss Alice||Benson, Sir George|
|Albu, Austen||Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Blackburn, F.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Beaney, Alan||Blyton, William|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Bence, Cyril||Boardman, H.|
|Awbery, Stan||Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)||Hoy, James H.||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Bowles, Frank||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Prentice R. E.|
|Boyden, James||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hunter, A. E.||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Randall, Harry|
|Callaghan, James||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Rankin, John|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Reid, William|
|Chapman, Donald||Janner, Sir Barnett||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Cliffe, Michael||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jeger, George||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Darling, George||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Ross, William|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kelley, Richard||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Deer, George||Kenyon, Clifford||Short, Edward|
|Delargy, Hugh||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Dempsey, James||King, Dr. Horace||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Diamond, John||Lawson, George||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Dodds, Norman||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Donnelly, Desmond||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Small, William|
|Driberg, Tom||Lipton, Marcus||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Loughlin, Charles||Snow, Julian|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. c.||Lubbock, Eric||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Edelman, Maurice||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||MacColl, James||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||McInnes, James||Steele, Thomas|
|Evans, Albert||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Stones, William|
|Finch, Harold||McLeavy, Frank||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Fitch, Alan||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Taverne, D,|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Forman, J. C.||Manuel, Archie||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mapp, Charles||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Mason, Roy||Thornton, Ernest|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Mellish, R. J.||Tomney, Frank|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)||Mendelson, J. J.||Wade, Donald|
|Ginsburg, David||Millan, Bruce||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Milne, Edward||Warbey, William|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mitchison, G. R.||Watkins, Tudor|
|Grey, Charles||Monslow, Walter||Weitzman, David|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Moody, A. S.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Moyle, Arthur||Whitlock, William|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Neal, Harold||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Gunter, Ray||Oliver, G. H.||Willey, Frederick|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Oram, A. E.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Oswald, Thomas||Williams, LI. (Anertillery)|
|Hannan, William||Owen, Will||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Harper, Joseph||Padley, W. E.||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Hart, Mrs. Judith||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Pargiter, G. A.||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Healey, Denis||Parker, John||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A,|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Paton, John||Woof, Robert|
|Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Pavitt, Laurence||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Hilton, A. V.||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Holman, Percy||Peart, Frederick|
|Holt, Arthur||Pentland, Norman||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Houghton, Douglas||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Mr. Redhead and Or. Broughton.|
§ It being after Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour, including the Questions on Amendments to Clause 53, a New Clause and Amendments to Schedule 7, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.
§ Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.