HC Deb 18 April 1962 vol 658 cc529-57
Mr. Speaker

I call the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to move the Amendment in page 53, line 39, to leave out "advising the Minister on such" and to insert: submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on".

Mr. Strauss

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Clause 34 has been amended, does the House not have an opportunity of voting on the Clause as a whole if it so desires?

Mr. Speaker

We are not in Committee. We do not have any vote on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", on consideration.

The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Member, which I have mentioned. I assume that it would be convenient to discuss with it the following Amendment in page 53, line 40 to leave out "or any" and to insert: of transport in the public interest or such".

Mr. Popplewell

I beg to move, in page 53, line 39, to leave out "advising the Minister on such" and to insert: submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on". I think that there is wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in your suggestion that we should discuss this Amendment with the Amendment which immediately follows.

We are discussing the only Clause in the Bill which, by any stretch of the imagination, gives any power with a view to the chairmen of the four boards and the Holding Company meeting under the chairmanship of the Minister to discuss any form of co-ordination or integration. This, we think, is a very weak Bill. The powers given to the National Transport Advisory Council as defined in the Clause are of a very negative character. We seek to put some teeth into the Clause and to define the powers of the Advisory Council, as outlined in the words of the Amendment: submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on. Since the Tory Government were returned in 1951 we have had a spate of legislation on transport matters. In this Bill we are, in effect, seeing the turn of the full cycle. When we left office there was a transport undertaking in which there was a small Transport Commission and a number of executives, each responsible for a given form of transport. The Government which came in in 1951 destroyed that function and destroyed those executives. It established a very much enlarged Commission and empowered it to run the transport industry which had come under public ownership.

Tory ideology has learned some lessons. It has found that the structure established in the 1953 Act is no longer workable. Therefore, the Government propose the establishment of four boards plus a Holding Company without the overall co-ordination of the Transport Commission looking at transport as a whole. In effect, they turn the full cycle and we get back to some extent to the old executives established under the 1947 Act, but with the great weakness that there is not overall control.

4.45 p.m.

The Bill establishes this infantile body, the National Transport Advisory Council, which will discuss with the Minister any items which he refers to it. This is a ridiculous position. The Bill says that the Council will advise the Minister on such matters relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised undertakings as the Minister may refer to the Council. Taking the literal interpretation of the Measure, this means that the powers of this Advisory Council will be so circumscribed that it can do nothing unless the Minister suggests it in the first place.

In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary made many references to the vertical structure of each of these boards and the Holding Company and disclaimed any desire for a horizontal linkup in the various structures, claiming that the Advisory Council would have the power to co-ordinate. The most ridiculous thing is that we find the Advisory Council has no power to make any recommendation unless the Minister refers to the Council.

By any stretch of the imagination this cannot be termed a form of co-ordination. The Parliamentary Secretary has had to yield on a number of occasions and to say that the working agreements established under the 1928 Acts, although the parent agreements are destroyed, would still be operative.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

I do not understand what the hon. Member is saying. Will he repeat that?

Mr. Popplewell

During the Committee stage, when we were discussing this vertical structure, the Parliamentary Secretary got away from his brief and tried to claim that the working agreements established under the 1928 Acts would still be operative.

Mr. G. Wilson

They are.

Mr. Popplewell

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) may disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am quoting his words and the hon. Member can look them up.

Mr. G. Wilson

I am saying that they are certainly operative.

Mr. Popplewell

If the hon. Member would listen he would know that that is the point I have been making. First, the Minister claimed that there was a vertical structure very tightly wound round each of the boards. Then he had to shield himself by saying that the working agreements of the 1928 Acts would still be operative. He said that there would be co-ordination in so fax as the bus companies were concerned.

Mr. G. Wilson

He also said that the parent agreement still subsisted.

Mr. Popplewell

The hon. Member for Truro said that the parent agreement would be overthrown. In the Bill the parent agreement is overthrown.

Mr. Hay

Will the hon. Member say where?

Mr. Popplewell

Is it in Clause 12?

Mr. Hay

I do not know.

Mr. Popplewell

Perhaps I shall have an opportunity to look it up, but it is there. It is stated that the parent agreements under the 1928 Act—it will take a little time, but I shall hand it over to the Parliamentary Secretary later. He knows that it is there as well as I do.

Mr. Hay

I do not.

Mr. Popplewell

The hon. Gentleman is just shielding behind it.

Mr. Webster

I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) could explain.

Mr. Manuel

My hon. Friend will give the information in a moment.

Mr. Webster

Otherwise, we shall not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Popplewell

I shall look it up and pass it across to the Parliamentary Secretary in a little while. In the meantime, let us consider this complete lack of co-ordination and the way in which the Minister is relying on these working agreements.

The Parliamentary Secretary shielded himself by suggesting that the National Advisory Council would supply this necessary co-ordination. My argument is that, according to the definition contained in the Clause, the Minister will decide just what the Council will discuss. My hon. Friends feel that if the Council is to be worth anything at all it must have some clearly defined powers by which it can work effectively. Hence the Amendment which, we hope, will be accepted.

If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) will study Clause 4 he will find that subsection (2) states that The Railways Board shall not in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Acts of 1928 without the consent of the Minister— Thus, before the 1928 parent agreement can be operated the Minister must approve what is proposed to be done. That is exactly the point I am making.

Mr. Hay

The hon. Gentleman really must stop trying to mislead the House, and I am sorry to have to use that phrase. He should have quoted the whole of that passage, which reads: The Railways Board shall not in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Acts of 1928 without the consent of the Minister— (a) enter into any agreement for the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by road … That clearly refers to a new agreement and not to those which existed by virtue of the 1928 Acts and which were made a long time before. The hon. Gentleman made a wildly wrong point and I think he should withdraw it.

Mr. Popplewell

When the Parliamentary Secretary gets away from his brief he goes wrong, as usual. The 1928 agreements referred to the carrying of passengers by road, because it was those agreements which enabled the railway companies to enter into partnership with the bus companies. As I say, when the Parliamentary Secretary leaves his brief he gets led astray very badly. I notice that even the hon. Member for Truro is not supporting him.

Mr. G. Wilson

If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) thinks that, I urge him to read subsection (2, b), which states: … except in pursuance of an agreement under the said Acts (whether entered into before or after the passing of this Act) provide any service for the carriage of passengers by road … that is, except for the 1928 Acts.

Mr. Popplewell

Exactly. It refers to passengers by road, which is contrary to the basis of the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary and, as I have said, the 1928 agreements cannot be implemented without the consent of the Minister. Therefore, there is absolutely no form of co-ordination in any shape or form in the Bill and we hope that the diehard Tory ideology that each section of the transport industry can be self-supporting unto itself.

We all remember the strife in the railway industry between the wars, with each section of transport opposing the other in the courts, and we now say that some kind of co-ordination, such as that which operated for a brief span under the 1947 Act, is now required. Under that Act, for the first time for many decades, there was real co-ordination, although that policy was turned upside down a little later. A return to that sort of strife is accentuated by the Bill. The taxpayer will have to bear a greater burden and my hon. Friends have tabled the Amendment to give the proposed new National Council the power to do a useful job of work.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) did not even begin to make out a case to support the Amendment. He certainly did not make a case for the wonderful transport system which he claimed was set up in 1947. No party has yet produced a wonderful system of transport. The Bill may be a step forward, but I do not share to the full some of the optimistic hopes that have been expressed.

By his Amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West is asking for a considerable extension, not only of the powers of another body—I think that we are calling it N.A.T.A.C. or some such set of initials—but he is wishing to change its species. The new body must be concerned with the nationalised transport undertaking, in which there is a great need of co-ordination. We have had many examples of unprofitable bus companies often competing with unprofitable railway services and this sort of thing is not good enough. I accept, therefore, that there is some need for a coordinating body of the kind proposed, but I absolutely fail to see why this body should be completely changed in character and set up as another judge of public interest.

I believe that the Ministry of Transport has a job which has been fairly and squarely placed on its shoulders, but which the hon. Gentleman is now asking this changed body to do. It would not be right for my hon. Friend to even think of accepting the Amendment. Nevertheless, hon. Members have a part to play in this matter. We should not have a great many different organisations, of all sorts of hybrid kinds, judging the public interest when it is clearly the duty of the Minister and Parliament to fulfil this rôle. I hope, therefore, that the House will make short shrift of the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel

I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who seems to think that there already exists sufficient ability in the various fields of transport endeavour in the members of the railway boards. The capabilities of these people to undertake all the work that would come under the aegis of the Advisory Council is circumscribed by the Bill's limitations on the selection of those people.

They may have knowledge of financial and industrial matters and of the organisation of labour, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) indicated that we are considering an Advisory Council which will consist, in the main, of people with technical ability who will advise on transport problems.

Mr. Peyton

That is exactly the point I was making; technical ability to advise on transport problems, but that they should not be set up as judges and arbiters of the public interest.

Mr. Manuel

Public interest does not come into this part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Yeovil should not rush into the Chamber at the last moment and seek to state his views.

Mr. Peyton

Nevertheless, I was making that point. The Amendment being discussed with the one moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West states: … of transport in the public interest …

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel

The point I am making is that the Minister has agreed to the setting up of a Transport Advisory Council, according to the Clause—and I am arguing from the Minister's point of view. That is in addition to the Railways Board, and we know the kind of people whom the Minister hopes to recruit to that Board. I assume that the members of the Advisory Council will not have the same sort of qualifications.

Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary can help us here. I presume that he has some idea of the type of person required. I assume, having some little knowledge of railways, that they should be able to advise the Minister on technical matters. The railway industry, however, is not an open book, the sort of industry where someone can be brought in from outside—and we are having too much of that at present. This body advising on technical aspects of fairly obvious railway problems which may arise in, say, the next ten years would have a very valuable task to perform.

I submit that the Amendment is a good one. The Minister does not necessarily have to accept the advice which is given to him by this body, but surely he will agree that it would be wrong to say to such an advisory body, "You must not have any mind of your own; you must not submit any problem that you think should be submitted to the Minister. You should not commit yourself to anything; you must wait until the Minister refers a matter to you for your consideration, on which the Minister will give his final decision."

Surely we should allow the Advisory Council a little freedom. If it sees that something has gone wrong, it should have freedom to justify its existence and should be able to make to the Minister recommendations which it considers would be helpful to transport generally. In the final analysis it is the Minister who will decide whether to accept the advice. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point does not arise. He is protected, at any rate so long as we have a Tory Minister—although we cannot guarantee that that will always be the case. We would certainly welcome this extension of powers to the Advisory Council if there were a Ministerial change to someone of a different political complexion.

Mr. Hay

I think that a lot of the trouble with which this Amendment seeks to deal arises from the fact that the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) have not appreciated that this Clause is concerned with setting up what we call in the Bill the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, and not the National Transport Advisory Council. There were a number of slips of the tongue by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. He persistently referred to this body as the National Transport Advisory Council, but it is not. It is a council which is advisory to the Minister and is concerned only with nationalised transport undertakings.

In answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, the membership is not just a number of people chosen because of their technical abilities; it is a number of people chosen because of the positions that they hold in the nationalised transport undertakings. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 55 (2) he will see that there is to be a chairman, a vice-chairman with five outsiders, if I may so call them, and then there will be the chairmen of the four boards, the chairman of the Holding Company, and until the vesting date, the chairman of the Commission. As we have said so often in the course of our debates, the object of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council—or "NATAC" as we have come to call it for brevity—is to create a forum in which the chairmen of all the boards and the chairman of the Holding Company can meet together with the Minister and with a few independent people from outside to advise the Minister on the various matters which affect not transport generally, not national transport—but the nationalised transport undertakings. That is perfectly clear from the concluding words on page 53 of the Bill, at lines 40 and 41. Having said that about the ambit of the Council—

Mr. Ron Ledger (Romford)

I am not clear about the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has just given. The last two lines to which he has referred say that the matters on which the Advisory Council will advise the Minister will be those which the Minister may refer to the Council. Therefore, it would appear that the Council will have no right to promote a discussion of any kind. It will merely have to discuss matters which the Minister brings to its attention. Presumably, if he wishes to avoid discussion of any subject, he can do so by not referring it to the Council in the first place.

Mr. Hay

I had that point in mind and I shall deal with it fully in due course.

The effect of the Amendment would be substantially to enlarge the remit that we give to the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. It would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out, give the Council a duty to submit to the Minister from time to time, if it should think fit, a general review of transport problems and give him advice on questions relating to the co-ordination of transport in the public interest.

Indeed, if we look at the specific words of the Amendment, the Council's remit would not be confined to transport in this country. If we were to accept the words in the Amendment— … a general review of transport problems it would be perfectly in order and open to the Council to consider and put to the Minister its views on transport anywhere in the world. I mention that, not because I imagine the Council would do that, but to point out the width of the words which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West is asking us to put into the Bill.

We have always taken the view that the main task of the Council is to advise the Minister only on questions which arise from nationalised transport undertakings and particularly on the coordination of the services that they provide. The whole composition of the Council is designed for that purpose. While the Council will have regard to general problems which affect transport as a whole in this country, because they may well be relevant to the conduct of the nationalised transport undertakings, we think that it would be quite wrong to place upon the Council a statutory duty, as the Amendment would do, to review general transport problems in Britain.

Mr. Manuel

Is not the hon. Gentleman being unfair? The Amendment in line 40 seeks to leave out the words "or any" and to insert: of transport in the public interest or such and it would go on to read: other aspects, of the nationalised transport undertakings … —not international and all the rest of it, as the hon. Gentleman has been saying in order to confuse the House.

Mr. Hay

I am afraid that the hon. Member is as unfortunate in that intervention as he was in an earlier one. It is obvious that he has not even studied the Amendment in line 39 which is being discussed with the Amendment in line 40. The words of the Amendment are: submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on". Those are the words which the Amendment seeks to insert and that is the proposition before the House.

Mr. Manuel

So is the other.

Mr. Hay

I am entitled to dissect the Amendment and to point out the intrinsic ills that would flow if it were accepted. The hon. Gentleman must not be so naive as all that.

Secondly—and I want to make this point very forcibly—we take the view that this Council should be what its name implies, an advisory council. It should not have of its own volition executive functions or capacities of any kind. Its job will be to help and advise the Minister. This is the answer to the hon. Gentleman who asked about the Minister referring matters to the Council. The whole point is that if the Minister has an advisory council, advisory to him, he should have the right to say what subjects he wishes to be advised upon. That is why we have put these words in line 41, page 53.

We do not think that it is the job of this Council to do other than help the Minister by its deliberations. It should, therefore, confine its work and concentrate its attention upon those matters upon which the Minister requires assistance. For those reasons, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil that it would be quite wrong for the House to accept this Amendment. Our object is to have an advisory council, advisory to the Minister, concerned only with the nationalised transport undertakings, and one which will provide, as I have said frequently before, a place in which the whole subject of the coordination of the services provided by the boards, the Holding Company and their respective subsidiaries can be discussed. That is what we want and we must, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss

We have made it clear throughout our discussions on the Bill that we regard the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, as proposed in this Clause, with the greatest suspicion, and that we do not think that it will be any effective substitute for the supervisory effective control which the British Transport Commission had over all the publicly-owned transport elements. We think that it is very largely a piece of camouflage put up in defence of the accusation that the Government are in fact doing away with any proper co-ordinating authority.

We are perfectly aware, as the Minister said, that in this Amendment we are trying to enlarge the authority and the work of this body. The Government have decided that such a body shall be established, and we have tried in Committee, and we are trying here, to give it a useful bit of work to do. In Committee, we suggested that it should be not only advisory but that it should have certain powers. That was turned down. Now we are suggesting that this body should not have any executive powers but should be something quite simple, and, I should have thought, obviously desirable—that is that it should advise the Minister and submit to the Minister its views on the general questions of co-ordination of transport both inside the nationalised sector and outside it.

Mr. Peyton

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that a body of this kind, apart from any other question, should have the power to make general recommendations about transport matters if no one concerned with privately owned transport is on the body?

Mr. Strauss

I shall come to that point in a moment. I was about to say that there is no difference between the hon. Member for Yeovil and myself concerning the desirability for further co-ordination of transport. He said in his speech that he considered that there should be much more co-ordination than there is at the moment. The question is who is to carry it out. The person with executive authority, and the only executive authority, will be the Minister. But he can do nothing without bringing a Bill before the House. Who is to advise him on these matters? It seems to us that the only body in existence, and the body best able to do this, will be the body proposed to be set up under the Bill, which will consist of the best authorities and the most knowledgeable people inside the public sector of transport—the chairmen of the boards, the chairman of the Holding Company, together with five people from outside whom the Minister may appoint. If this were really to be a body to give advice to the Minister on these wider problems, there would be a case for putting among those five people representatives of private transport—a very strong case—and we would support it. The Minister has power to do that if he wants to.

It seems to us that here will be a body which is authoritative and knowledgeable and its work should not be confined to advising the Minister on matters concerning the nationalised sector of the industry alone. It should be in a position to submit to the Minister advice—this is all we suggest— on co-ordination inside and outside the nationalised industry. In other words, we have the same objective as the hon. Member for Yeovil. We think that this body would be a good one to do it— we know of none better—and for that reason we suggest this Amendment not in the belief that the Government will accept it, but because we know that it is a very wise and sensible one.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

I feel that the National Transport Advisory Council will not—

Mr. Hay

It is "Nationalised". The hon. Gentleman must get it right.

Mr. Holt

What did I say?

Mr. Hay


Mr. Holt

The Nationalised Transport Advisory Council will not last long as a going concern in the form provided for in the Bill because, as the Minister himself said, it will have to be concerned with all aspects of transport in considering its own particular problems. I think that it will become apparent that the council could be an important instrument for taking a wide look at transport in this country as a whole in order to give advice to the Minister. There may be different views about the way in which the Council might be best altered, but I am absolutely sure—I made this point in Committee—that there is a job to be done by a transport advisory council covering all transport in connection with, for instance, the closing of uneconomic railway services and the possible closing of some uneconomic bus services.

How the Government intend to deal with these matters on the social side has not yet been made clear. My own view is that, where these services are no longer economic and we cannot, therefore, continue an obligation on the railways to keep them going, though the Government want them to be kept going, they should be put up for auction, it being made clear how much subsidy the Government are prepared to allocate for keeping some bus services running in, for instance, the South-West or the North-East.

Matters of this kind will have to be considered by someone other than the Minister of Transport. I think that they must be looked at by a committee which does not take a purely local view but has regard to national policy in connection with transport. I do not see how such a committee can do its job without an expert staff in London where the committee will be sitting and also, I think, a small staff in the regions. It would probably be out of order if I were to develop some other aspects of the matter, but I think that this is tied up with future plans in connection with town planning, the location of industry and so on. I think that the Minister will eventually have to turn to an advisory

body—some of the members probably being paid fees—which will look at the problem at a fairly high level.

It is not entirely a matter of coordinating certain services. It is not even entirely a matter of reviewing the question of subsidy for unremunera services where it is necessary to keep them going for social or other reasons. There is also, in my view, a need to consider the proper development of the road system and the proper position of railways in modern society. There are even problems in connection with canals and so forth which should be taken into account.

It is very disappointing that the Minister has not in the Bill taken a wider look at the problem and grasped the opportunity of providing himself now with a high-level advisory council covering the whole field instead of one just looking at co-ordination within the nationalised transport industry.

Question put, That "advising the Minister on such" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 205.

Division No. 168.] AYES [5.21 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Clarke, Brig. Terence (Ports, W.) George, J. C. (Pollok)
Aitken, w. T. Cleaver, Leonard Gibson-Watt, David
Allason, James Cole, Norman Gilmour, Sir John
Arbuthnot, John Collard, Richard Glover, Sir Douglas
Balniel, Lord Cooper, A. E. Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Barber, Anthony Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Goodhart, Philip
Barlow, Sir John Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Goodhew, Victor
Barter, John Costain, A. P. Gower, Raymond
Batsford, Brian Coulson, Michael Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Craddock, Sir Beresford Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Critchley, Julian Green, Alan
Berkeley, Humphry Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Gresham Cooke, R.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Crowder, F. P. Gurden, Harold
Bidgood, John C. Cunningham, Knox Hall, John (Wycombe)
Biffen, John Curran, Charles Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Biggs-Davison, John Dalkeith, Earl of Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bingham, R. M. Dance, James Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Deedes, W. F. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Bishop, F. P. de Ferranti, Basil Harvie Anderson, Miss
Black, Sir Cyril Digby, Simon Wingfield Hay, John
Bossom, Clive Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Bourne-Arton, A. Doughty, Charles Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Box, Donald Drayson, G. B. Hiley, Joseph
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Duncan, Sir James Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Boyle, Sir Edward Eden, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Brewis, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Emery, Peter Hirst, Geoffrey
Brooman-White, R. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hocking, Philip N.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Errington, Sir Eric Holland, Philip
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Farey-Jones, F. W. Hopkins, Alan
Bryan, Paul Farr, John Hornby, R. P.
Buck, Antony Fell, Anthony Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Bullard, Denys Finlay, Graeme Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Fisher, Nigel Hughes-Young, Michael
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jackson, John
Channon, H. P. G. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) James, David
Chataway, Christopher Freeth, Denzil Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Chichester-Clark, R. Gammans, Lady Jennings, J. C.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Gardner, Edward Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Morrison, John Speir, Rupert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Stanley, Hon. Richard
Joseph, Sir Keith Nabarro, Gerald Stevens, Geoffrey
Kerby, Capt. Henry Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Noble, Michael Storey, Sir Samuel
Kimball, Marcus Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Studholme, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Kitson, Timothy Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Tapsell, Peter
Lagden, Godfrey Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Osborn, John (Hallam) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Leather, E. H. C. Page, Graham (Crosby) Teeling, Sir William
Leavey, J. A. Page, John (Harrow, West) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Percival, Ian Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Lilley, F. J. P. Peyton, John Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lindsay, Sir Martin Pilkington, Sir Richard Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Litchfield, Capt. John Pitman, Sir James Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Pitt, Miss Edith Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Longbottom, Charles Pott, Percivall Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Longden, Gilbert Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Turner, Colin
Loveys, Walter H. Prior, J. M. L. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Vane, W. M. F.
McAdden, Stephen Proudfoot, Wilfred Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacArthur, Ian Pym, Francis Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Rawlinson, Peter Walker, Peter
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Maclean, Sir Fitroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.) Rees, Hugh Wall, Patrick
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Rees-Davi, W. R. Ward, Dame Irene
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Renton, David Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Webster, David
Maddan, Martin Rippon, Geoffrey Wells, John (Maidstone)
Maitland, Sir John Roots, William Whitelaw, William
Markham, Major Sir Frank Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Russell, Ronald Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Scott-Hopkins, James Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden) Seymour, Leslie Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mawby, Ray Sharples, Richard Wise, A. R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Shaw, M. Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Shepherd, William Woodnutt, Mark
Mills, Stratton Skeet, T. H. H. Woollam, John
Montgomery, Fergus Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Worsley, Marcus
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Morgan, William Spearman, Sir Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.
Abse, Leo Dodds, Norman Houghton, Douglas
Ainsley, William Driberg, Tom Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Albu, Austen Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Hoy, James H.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Edelman, Maurice Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Awbery, Stan Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bacon, Miss Alice Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Beaney, Alan Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hunter, A. E.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Evans, Albert Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Benson, Sir George Finch, Harold Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Blackburn, F. Fitch, Alan Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Blyton, William Fletcher, Eric Janner, Sir Barnett
Boardman, H. Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Forman, J. C. Jeger, George
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Bowles, Frank Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Boyden, James Ginsburg, David Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Brockway, A. Fenner Greenwood, Anthony Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Grey, Charles Kelley, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Kenyon, Clifford
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Ledger, Ron
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Gunter, Ray Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Callaghan, James Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Chapman, Donald Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Lipton, Marcus
Cliffe, Michael Hamilton, William (West Fife) Loughlin, Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hannan, William Lubbock, Eric
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Harper, Joseph Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hart, Mrs. Judith McCann, John
Darling, George Hayman, F. H. McInnes, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Healey, Denis McKay, John (Wallsend)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) McLeavy, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Herbison, Miss Margaret MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hill, J. (Midlothian) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Deer, George Hilton, A. V. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Dempsey, James Holman, Percy Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Diamond, John Holt, Arthur Manuel, Archie
Mapp, Charles Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Taverne, D.
Marsh, Richard Probert, Arthur Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mason, Roy Proctor, W. T. Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mellish, R. J. Randall, Harry Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Mendelson, J. J. Rankin, John Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Millan, Bruce Redhead, E. C. Thornton, Ernest
Milne, Edward Reid, William Thorpe, Jeremy
Mitchison, G. R. Reynolds, G. W. Tomney, Frank
Monslow, Walter Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wade, Donald
Moody, A. S. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wainwright, Edwin
Morris, John Robertson, John (Paisley) Warbey, William
Moyle, Arthur Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Watkins, Tudor
Mulley, Frederick Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Weitzman, David
Neal, Harold Ross, William Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Oliver, G. H. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Oram, A. E. Short, Edward Whitlock, William
Oswald, Thomas Silverman, Julius (Aston) Wigg, George
Owen, Will Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wilkins, W. A.
Padley, W. E. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Willey, Frederick
Paget, R. T. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Small, William Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Pargiter, G. A. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Parker, John Sorensen, R. W. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Paton, John Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence Spriggs, Leslie Winterbottom, R. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Peart, Frederick Stones, William Woof, Robert
Pentland, Norman Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Plummer, Sir Leslie Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) Zilliacus, K.
Popplewell, Ernest Swain, Thomas
Prentice, R. E. Swingler, Stephen TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Spriggs

I beg to move, in page 54, line 38, at the end to insert: (8) As soon as possible after the end of each calendar year, the Council shall make to the Minister a report of their exercise of their functions during that year, with such comments (if any) as they consider appropriate, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)

On a point of order. Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the next four Amendments on the Notice Paper will be discussed with this Amendment? I had heard that that was so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

We are a little way on. We are now discussing the Amendment in page 54, line 38, and discussing it, in fact, by itself.

Mr. Spriggs

Clause 55 (7) reads: The Minister may pay out of money provided by Parliament to the persons appointed by him under this section such remuneration and such travelling allowances and allowances in respect of out-of-pocket expenses as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury determine, and the Minister shall provide the Council"— that is, the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council— with such officers and servants, and such accommodation, as appear to him to be requisite for the discharge of the Council's functions.

The Amendment reads: As soon as possible after the end of each calendar year the Council shall make to the Minister a report of their exercise of their functions during that year, with such comments (if any) as they consider appropriate, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament. I submit that this provision is vitally important. It would be completely wrong if this Council were to make reports which were secret in nature and which were not made available to Members of the House of Commons or were made available too late to be of any use to the House. With these few words, I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Hay

The hon. Member for St Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has moved this Amendment quite briefly, but it is one which lends itself to brevity. Its simple purpose is to place an obligation on the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to make an annual report to the Minister on the exercise of its functions, and it can add whatever comments it thinks appropriate. The Amendment would provide that the report should be laid before Parliament.

On the face of it, one would imagine that this was a perfectly reasonable proposition and that we ought to accept it. But I have explained why we cannot accept it. As I explained in dealing with the last Amendment, the whole purpose of this body is to advise the Minister of Transport about the activities of the nationalised transport undertakings. It is not intended to have any executive functions of any kind. Therefore, any precedent that might be in the mind of any hon. Member of other nationalised industries which have similar advisory councils would be a false one simply because these councils have executive functions of various kinds. Moreover, as I explained in dealing with the last Amendment, the Minister takes the power under the Clause to sit as chairman of the Council. It may well be that the Minister will frequently exercise that function, and if the Council were then required to present, as the Amendment proposes, a report to the Minister, the Minister would be in the rather extraordinary situation of reporting to himself. Therefore, for that reason, we do not think that this would be a very good idea.

There is, however, a more compelling reason which I wish to put to the House and one which I think should be treated as conclusive. It is bound to happen from time to time that the advice which the Council will have to give to the Minister will be based on matters which are confidential. It is bound to happen that the Council will be obliged to go into confidential matters in some detail and if it were to make a fair and honest report to the Minister and thence to Parliament it would have to state that it was unable to disclose what these confidential matters were.

Alternatively, the Council would perhaps be in the position of having to consider and advise upon confidential matters and then, eventually, to make a report which would be published. In those circumstances its ability to deal with and handle confidential matters might very seriously be prejudiced because the Council would naturally say, "We must always bear in mind that we have to make a report to Parliament about this." For those reasons, I do not think that we can accept the Amendment.

I realise the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but if hon. Members will grasp the fact that the object of having the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council is simply and solely for the purpose of assisting the Minister, to help him and to give him advice, but not to conduct an inquiry at large over the whole of our transport system, both public and private, then I think they will realise that there is no compelling reason why a report of this kind should be made either to the Minister or to Parliament. For those reasons I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Popplewell

We on this side of the House are absolutely astonished at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to the case for this Amendment. He says that the reason for his objection to the Amendment is because the whole basis of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council is to advise. While, of course, we appreciate that, we want to know what advice the Council is going to tender. Under the present structure of the Transport Commission its accounts are presented to the House yearly. We are able to raise any matters that we care to on those accounts. We can probe and see what advice is being given. This Bill is taking away that privilege.

Mr. Hay

I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has omitted to point out to the House that the reports of the four boards and of the Holding Company, which will contain the sort of information that is now in the annual report of the B.T.C., will be published and laid before Parliament and will be debated by the House in the ordinary way.

Mr. Popplewell

I have not overlooked that fact, but what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that the Council, in fact, will have representatives from the respective boards that will meet the Minister. They will be above the board level completely and will be able to advise.

Mr. Hay

They are the chairmen of the boards.

Mr. Popplewell

Certainly they are the chairmen of the boards, but we shall be unable to investigate the advice which they will tender because it will not be made public. We shall not be able to investigate the working of the boards. At the moment we can investigate the working of the Transport Commission because it publishes a full account of everything and there is no super body above the Commission. Here we are establishing a body, as it were, above the respective boards which are going to consult with the Minister.

We are extremely suspicious about this because we have known of investigations taking place into the various aspects of the British Transport Commission's undertakings in which the Minister has shielded himself by saying, "This is a Departmental report, a committee report and although I must take note of the advice tendered to me because it is of such a grave nature, you in Parliament will not be able to have any information about it." That has been the position in the past. The Advisory Council is to be the coordinating link between the Minister and the four boards and the Holding Company on matters which the Minister refers to it. Surely Members of the House are entitled to the information that it tenders to the Minister.

The Leader of the House is present. He jealously safeguards the interests of the House. I am sure that he will agree with what I have said. Since the Council will be the only co-ordinating link between the Minister and the four boards under the Bill, surely the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House and wishing to safeguard our rights, will say to his hon. Friend, "If you do not propose to do anything about this matter now, ensure that something is done about it in another place so that the rights of Members of the House of Commons are adequately safeguarded."

The Parliamentary Secretary says that certain matters with which the Council may deal may be confidential. I do not think that any other undertaking or service in the country has been subjected to as many inquiries, Departmental reports and investigations by Select Committees as the transport undertaking. Therefore, we say that any advice which a body with a say in the operations of this important service gives to the Minister should be made known to Parliament. We do not want to vote on this Amendment, because we wished to get on with other business, but, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude, unless we receive an assurance from the Leader of the House that he himself will have a look at this matter to see whether something can be done to meet our wishes in another place, I think that we shall have to divide.

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) contrived to look spendidly surprised when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary rejected the Amendment. My surprise at the Amendment having been moved from the quarter from which it has been moved is far greater and far more genuine than the hon. Member's surprise at the rejection of the Amendment. I should not dream of admitting that any stupid Amendment is ever moved from the Conservative benches, but if such a thing were to happen this is just the type of Amendment which one would describe as a silly Tory Amendment.

What the Amendment asks is that a nationalised undertaking should be compelled to air its domestic affairs in public to its own great prejudice. Had an hon. Member on this side moved this Amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West would have been the first to say, "Here is another bit of Tory nagging, and we are not going to put up with it." I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. His enthusiasm for the last Amendment has, so to speak, washed on into this one. He is still bogged down by the misconception in his mind that we are discussing a national transport advisory committee, which is exactly what we are not doing. I should have thought, that those apostles of purity on the Opposition benches who commend nationalisation in all its aspects would have been with me to a man. I rejoice in such a happy occasion and advise them, in their own interests, to vote against what would be a very silly Amendment moved from any quarter, but which, coming from that quarter, is self-defeating and asinine.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

At the risk of being called a supporter of a silly, stupid Amendment, I rise to support the Amendment. This may astonish the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but there is good reason to support it. It is often said that the powers of Parliament are being greatly diminished, that matters are being kept secret and that disclosures are not being made to the House of Commons.

5.45 p.m.

Let us examine what this Amendment does, and what this Council is supposed to do. Under Clause 55 (1), the function of this Council is to advise the Minister on such questions relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised transport undertakings as the Minister may refer to the Council". The Parliamentary Secretary says that the advice which the Council gives may often be confidential and he wonders how a confidential report can be laid before Parliament. He also says that the Minister will often have to take the chair and that it would be a delicate situation if the Minister had to report to himself. But the Minister often may not take the chair. Even if the Minister takes the chair, the advice and decision are by the Council. Why they should not be made known to the House, I do not know. If extremely confidential matters are dealt with, they need not be reported, or if a piece of advice is given

which depends on information which is confidential it can always be said in the report, "These are confidential matters."

The House of Commons has an administrative duty under this Bill. This Bill does certain things and the Council is charged with certain functions. The House of Commons is a watchdog in these matters. Every piece of information should be put before it unless it is so confidential that the House is not entitled to know about it.

Why the Parliamentary Secretary should hide behind an argument about matters being confidential, I do not know. To cap it all, we had a speech from the hon. Member for Yeovil which did not contain a single argument against the Amendment. All that he could say was that the Amendment was stupid. I think that it is a good Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

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

The House Divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.

Division No. 169.] AYES [5.48 p.m.
Abse, Leo Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ainsley, William Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Albu, Austen Evans, Albert Janner, Sir Barnett
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Finch, Harold Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fitch, Alan Jeger, George
Awbery, Stan Fletcher, Eric Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Bacon, Miss Alice Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Beaney, Alan Forman, J. C. Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Benson, Sir George Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Blackburn, F. Ginsburg, David Kelley, Richard
Blyton, William Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Kenyon, Clifford
Boardman, H. Greenwood, Anthony Lawson, George
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Grey, Charles Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S. W.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Bowles, Frank Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Boyden, James Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Lipton, Marcus
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Gunter, Ray Loughlin, Charles
Brockway, A. Fenner Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lubbock, Eric
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hamilton, William (West Fife) McCann, John
Callaghan, James Hannan, William McInnes, James
Chapman, Donald Harper, Joseph McKay, John (Wallsend)
Cliffe, Michael Hart, Mrs. Judith McLeavy, Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hayman, F. H. MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Healey, Denis MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Darling, George Herbison, Miss Margaret Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Manuel, Archie
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hilton, A. V Mapp, Charles
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Holman, Percy Marsh, Richard
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Holt, Arthur Mason, Roy
Deer, George Houghton, Douglas Mayhew, Christopher
Dempsey, James Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Mellish, R. J.
Diamond, John Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mendelson, J. J.
Dodds, Norman Hoy, James H. Millan, Bruce
Driberg, Tom Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Milne, Edward
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Mitchison, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Monslow, Walter
Edelman, Maurice Hunter, A. E. Moody, A. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Morris, John
Moyle, Arthur Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Thornton, Ernest
Mulley, Frederick Robertson, John (Paisley) Tomney, Frank
Neal, Harold Robinson, Kenneth (St., N.) Wade, Donald
Oliver, G. H. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Wainwright, Edwin
Oram, A. E. Ross, William Warbey, William
Oswald, Thomas Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Watkins, Tudor
Owen, Will Short, Edward Weitzman, David
Padley, W. E. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Pargiter, G. A. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Whitlock, William
Parker, John Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Wigg, George
Paton, John Small, William Wilkins, W. A.
Pavitt, Laurence Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Willey, Frederick
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Sorensen, R. W. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Peart, Frederick Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Pentland, Norman Spriggs, Leslie Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Plummer, Sir Leslie Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Popplewell, Ernest Stones, William Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Prentice, R. E. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall) Winterbottom, R. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Swain, Thomas Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Probert, Arthur Swingler, Stephen Woof, Robert
Proctor, W. T. Taverne, D. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Zilliacus, K.
Randall, Harry Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Rankin, John Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Reid, William Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Agnew, Sir Peter Digby, Simon Wingfield James, David
Aitken, W. T. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Allason, James Doughty, Charles Jennings, J. C.
Arbuthnot, John Drayson, G. B. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Atkins, Humphrey Duncan, Sir James Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Balniel, Lord Eden, John Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Barber, Anthony Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kerby, Capt. Henry
Barlow, Sir John Emery, Peter Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Barter, John Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kimball, Marcus
Batsford, Brian Errington, Sir Eric Kirk, Peter
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Farey-Jones, F. W. Kitson, Timothy
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Farr, John Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Berkeley, Humphry Fell, Anthony Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Finlay, Graeme Leather, E. H. C.
Bidgood, John C. Fisher, Nigel Leavey, J. A.
Biffen, John Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Biggs-Davison, John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bingham, R. M. Freeth, Denzil Lilley, F. J. P.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Gammans, Lady Lindsay, Sir Martin
Bishop, F. P. Gardner, Edward Litchfield, Capt. John
Black, Sir Cyril George, J. C. (Pollok) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bossom, Clive Gibson-Watt, David Longbottom, Charles
Bourne-Arton, A. Gilmour, Sir John Longden, Gilbert
Box, Donald Glover, Sir Douglas Loveys, Walter H.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Boyle, Sir Edward Goodhart, Philip Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Brewis, John Goodhew, Victor McAdden, Stephen
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Gower, Raymond MacArthur, Ian
Brooman-White, R. Grant, Rt. Hon. William McLaren, Martin
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Bryan, Paul Green, Alan Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Buck, Antony Gresham Cooke, R. Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)
Bullard, Denys Gurden, Harold McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hall, John (Wycombe) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Channon, H. P. G. Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maddan, Martin
Chataway, Christopher Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maitland, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Harvie Anderson, Miss Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Cleaver, Leonard Hay, John Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Cole, Norman Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Collard, Richard Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Mawby, Ray
Cooper, A. E. Hiley, Joseph Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Costain, A. P. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Mills, Stratton
Coulson, Michael Hirst, Geoffrey Montgomery, Fergus
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hobson, Sir John More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Critchley, Julian Hocking, Philip N. Morgan, William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Holland, Philip Morrison, John
Crowder, F. P. Hopkins, Alan Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Cunningham, Knox Hornby, R. P. Nabarro, Gerald
Curran, Charles Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Dalkeith, Earl of Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Noble, Michael
Dance, James Hughes-Young, Michael Nugent, Rt. Hon, Sir Richard
Deedes, W. F. Jackson, John Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Russell, Ronald Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Osborn, John (Hallam) Scott-Hopkins, James Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Seymour, Leslie Turner, Colin
Page, Graham (Crosby) Sharples, Richard Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Page, John (Harrow, West) Shaw, M. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Shepherd, William Vane, W. M. F.
Percival, Ian Skeet, T. H. H. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peyton, John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Pilkington, Sir Richard Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Walker, Peter
Pitman, Sir James Spearman, Sir Alexander Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Pitt, Miss Edith Speir, Rupert Wall, Patrick
Pott, Percivall Stanley, Hon. Richard Ward, Dame Irene
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Stevens, Geoffrey Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Prior, J. M. L. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Webster, David
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Wells, John (Maidstone)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Storey, Sir Samuel Whitelaw, William
Proudfoot, Wilfred Studholme, Sir Henry Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Pym, Francis Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Ramsden, James Tapsell, Peter Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Rawlinson, Peter Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Wise, A. R.
Rees, Hugh Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Woodnutt, Mark
Renton, David Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Woollam, John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Thomas, Peter (Conway) Worsley, Marcus
Rippon, Geoffrey Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Roots, William Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Tilney, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Mr. J E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.