§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg, to move,That Clause 1 be divided into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (I) to (3) and the second of subsections (4) to (9).This Amendment simply seeks to improve the layout of this important opening Clause of the Bill. It is a drafting Amendment which, we think, makes the Clause more satisfactory.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Mellish
I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:with a view to ensuring that such harbours, services and facilities are adequate to meet the existing or anticipated requirements of shipping or port users".In Committee, we had at one time an almost unique situation. The Parliamentary Secretary had made certain concessions to arguments which we had put about Clause 1 as then drafted. We 1326 had put down some Amendments—this was one of them—and, after some debate, it was finally agreed that the Committee should adjourn to enable the Government to redraft Clause 1. This they did, and when we came back after the Christmas Recess, although we still had this Amendment on the Notice Paper, in order to facilitate Government business—I gather that this is how it had to work—we withdrew our Amendment to enable the Government to get on with the newly drafted Clause.
Without wishing to be facetious, I think that the fact that it was the Parliamentary Secretary and not the Minister who was dealing with the matter was a great help. The hon. and gallant Gentleman fell over backwards to assist and we were grateful for what he did. Whether the Minister would have been so generous, I do not know. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman did certainly made for a good atmosphere.
I have now put before the House the Amendment which we had on the Notice Paper in Committee. In our view, the National Ports Council should be not an advisory body, but a body with power and real teeth. Of course, it must consult always with the harbour authorities and all those responsible for running the docks and harbours, but, if it is to be a realistic body, it must have powers to do a first-class job.
Our object in putting down the Amendment was to secure the long-term future. We believe that our Amendment would strengthen the Clause. I do not think that there will be any dispute between the Minister and this side of the House about that. What the Amendment does is to back up what Rochdale said in his Report. As has been said before, one of the great things about the Rochdale Report was that it dealt not only with the industry of today but with the industry of tomorrow. This is the first time we have ever had the dock industry analysed not so much from the pint of view of a rather wretched past at times, but from the point of view of what we hope will be a wonderful future.
If Rochdale is right, the dock industry's future will be a very fine one. Provided that our docks are modernised, provided that, to some extent, they have 1327 a central authority of this kind, and that Rochdale's expectations about an increase in trade are fulfilled, we shall have no need to fear competitors from abroad. If I may, I take this opportunity to say again to the dock workers that they have no need to worry about the future of their industry and about decasualisation. Indeed, this will be one of the special requirements of the industry of tomorrow.
This was our object in urging the adoption of the words which we propose. We felt that they gave emphasis to what we called forward planning. We want to ensure that the National Ports Council and the harbour authorities will constantly have in mind long-term planning.
This Amendment was not discussed in Committee because of the jamboree we all got involved in there in the circumstances I have described. The Parliamentary Secretary is on record as agreeing with us in wishing to make the National Ports Council an effective body. He agrees with us all along the line about this, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be readily accepted by the Government.
§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said and noted that he was very grateful for my absence during some of the Standing Committee's proceedings. However, I am here today.
I agree with the hon. Member, in principle, that we want the National Ports Council to have teeth, to be effective, to look forward and to devise comprehensive plans for the docks so that they are worthy of a trading nation whose trade will, I think, expand enormously in the next decade or two. Therefore, the hon. Member and I agree on that. I think that he will also agree that I played some part in appointing Lord Rochdale and his Committee and in bringing this Measure before the House. I should not have done that if I did not have that in mind.
As the Clause is drafted, the Council has a duty laid upon it. Under subsection (1,a) it has a duty concerningthe improvement of existing, and the provision of new, harbours in Great Britain and of services and facilities provided at such harbours".1328 The Amendment adds to that duty. It sets out precisely the objectives which the Council should have in mind when preparing its plans.
This matter was debated in Standing Committee and I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates. I think that there was general agreement that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had just about got the arguments right, and we redrafted the Clause accordingly. I was, therefore, a little surprised to see this Amendment on the Notice Paper.
There are three arguments against the Amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey to consider them carefully. First, the words of the Amendment are dangerous because they are not, and cannot by their nature be, all embracing. In other words, there are considerations other than those with which the Amendment deals which should be taken into account. What about, for example, strategic considerations? Once we start trying to develop the objectives which the Council should have in mind when drawing up comprehensive plans, we will not know where to stop. Employment considerations of a wide nature might have to be taken into account under some of the regional development plans. That is the first argument against the Amendment.
The second argument against it is that if we leave out a particular objective, does it mean that the Council should not consider that objective because provision for it is not made in the Statute? As I say, the Amendment cannot be all embracing by the nature of the task which the hon. Member for Bermondsey has tried very assiduously to carry out. Therefore, what happens to the considerations which are not dealt with?
The third argument against the Amendment is that it is unnecessary, for this reason. It is implicit from the way in which the Council's terms of reference are drafted that it will have regard to the wider objectives of national ports policy. It is far better to leave the Council unfettered in this respect than to set it particular objectives. The hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned forward planning. It is very difficult to be comprehensive in this matter if we have to take into account things of a technical nature which may happen in 1329 future. It is extremely difficult now to be able to say precisely what the Council's objective should be—I will not say for all time, but certainly for a generation or so. It would be very much better if the matter were left flexible because it is implicit that the Council should have regard to the wider objectives of national ports policy.
At one time I thought—I do not think it now—that the intention behind the Amendment might be to ensure that the interests of those affected by the Council's plans were brought into consultation. This matter was debated fully in Committee. The Government moved an Amendment to subsection (2) to provide for that consultation by the Council with such harbour authorities and other persons as appeared to the Council to be directly concerned. I therefore do not think that we need the Amendment. If the Council has these consultations with the harbour authorities, and so on, it is surely implicit that it will take into account the wider considerations for as far ahead as it can see.
I think that the idea of the hon. Member for Bermondsey was quite worthy, but I think that, on second thoughts, he will realise how difficult it is to add an Amendment stating what the Council's objectives should be and to make it all embracing. I ask the House to reject the Amendment, because it is a rather dangerous one.
§ Mr. Guy Barnett (Dorset, South)
I am not entirely convinced by the case which the Minister has made. He said that the objectives of the Council should be broader than those stated in the Amendment. He referred to strategic considerations and considerations involving regional planning. I should have thought that such considerations were primarily involved in Government planning. These are the kind of directions which the Government would give to the Council when they thought it right to do so.
If it was thought that strategic considerations were involved, that would be a matter which would, I suppose, come under the Ministry of Defence. If regional planning considerations were involved presumably the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade would get in touch with the Minister of Transport with 1330 a view to asking him to instruct the Council to make certain arrangements in the light of the regional planning which was going on.
I agree with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in support of the Amendment. It seems to me extremely important that in discussing our transport policy, whether it be in connection with roads, railways or harbours, we should consider the kind of services which the harbours are designed to give, whether to port users or to shipping. I feel that the Minister might have given the Amendment slightly more consideration than he has done.
§ Mr. Mellish
I am sorry that the Minister saw so much danger in our Amendment We never dreamed that it was such a menace. We certainly shall not take it to a vote.
It is generally agreed that the Rochdale Report was probably the best report ever made on the dock industry. It talked about the trends of today and tomorrow. This was the whole emphasis of the Report. Lord Rochdale made hardly any reference to what went on in the past. There is no point in going back over the past. We have had so much of that in the dock industry. Lord Rochdale will not be for ever the Chairman of the National Ports Council. He is human, like the rest of us, and he will last for only X number of years.
We wanted the Council to have this as part of its terms of reference and to consider it as priority No. 1. The Minister does not agree. He seemed to think that our wording went too far or not far enough. He used the argument both ways. We felt that the Government would realise that the Amendment would not embarrass his Lordship and the Committee. However, in view of the Minister's opposition, we shall not press it to a vote. There has been good will in the Committee, and I hope that there will be throughout. If this is how the Government feel about the Amendment, we will not vote on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert: "or a marine work".
Hon. Members who were members of the Committee will recall that when the 1331 Bill first appeared there was a general exclusion of marine works from the operation of the Bill. In due course, that provision had to be removed when it was decided for certain purposes to put marine and fishery works into the Measure. However, we did not make that decision until after Clause 1 had been passed, otherwise the Amendment would have been moved in Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Hoy
I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:and of the members of the council three including the Chairman shall be full-time members".I think that we stated clearly in Committee the reason for this Amendment. We felt that if the National Ports Council, which will do a very important job for the ports and harbours of this country, was to do its work efficiently and without delay it was essential that three of its members should be full-time members. We have specified that the chairman should be one of the three who was in full-time employment.
To repeat our arguments, the docks will have a very difficult time holding their own with docks and harbours on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere in the world. The whole tendency is for deep-water facilities to be provided for the ever-increasing size of ships. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, £75 million is being provided to build Europort, which is one and a half times the size of the sum that we are providing in the Bill for the whole of the ports of Britain. It is against that background that we have to consider the Amendment.
The tendency for shipping is to get bigger and bigger. Certainly, in the grain trade, in the very near future only those ships which are able to carry large quantities will be economically viable. For this purpose, it is essential that we provide in this country deep-water quays, which are no less important to us than those now being provided by our competitors on the Continent of Europe. When the situation is urgent, this is not something which will be tackled by people who have a few hours to spare in any one week. It 1332 is a job which calls for at least part of the National Ports Council to be employed in a full-time capacity.
Since moving the Amendment in Committee, I have had experience of what has been happening in connection with my constituency port, which was singled out by the Rochdale Committee as presenting the best opportunity for developing a deep-water port in Britain at minimum cost. As Lord Rochdale said, it could be done in Leith for only one-fifth of what it would cost in any other part of Britain. Lord Rochdale said that the essence of the scheme was speed and that there should be no delay in carrying out the project. Despite this, however, since the setting up of the National Ports Council, further delay has ensued. I do not suggest that the present members of the Council have wilfully delayed. What I am pointing out is that as part-time members, they obviously cannot give the job the attention which is desired. I use this merely as an example to point out what might happen concerning the development of ports throughout the country.
From an economic viewpoint, it is important for Britain to have ports which are first-class and are not inferior to those of our competitors. To do this, we must have a National Ports Council which is not only able to do the job, but can carry it out speedily and efficiently. We do not think that this can be done by people who meet in a part-time capacity.
Secondly, there is always the argument that the only man who will be full-time will be the director-general—that is the title which is given to the permanent secretary. Therefore, the whole Council will be dependent upon this one full-time official. This is not good for the Council for that official.
Therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I move the Amendment with much greater hope than we had upstairs, hoping that the Government have now realised that it is imperative for the development of our ports that the Council should, at the very least, have three members who will be giving their full time to this job, which is essential for the well-being of British ports.
§ Dr. King
This is our first head-on clash with the Minister on Report and 1333 I seriously hope that we shall be able to persuade him, as we failed to persuade his hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee.
We want the Bill to work. There is no division between the two sides of the House. We like the Bill and we believe in all that it sets out to do. That is why we had such a fine Committee stage upstairs. But we want the National Ports Council to be strong. We want it to be strong in the quality of its members as well as in its power. We realise, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must realise, what a vast task they are placing upon the shoulders of the new Ports Council. We want the best Ports Council that it is possible to create.
We did not discover until the Committee stage that even the chairman would be only part-time. It slowly dawned on us in Committee that the Ports Council had already been created before the Bill had been passed through the House of Commons. It is true that the present Council is in an advisory capacity only, but to shelter behind that fact is to split words. It is clear that the present advisory council will become the full Ports Council as soon as the Bill becomes law. On this, I protest. The Government have worked on the principle of doing something and making a law about it afterwards, what we might call anticipatory legislation.
The Ports Council has to make plans about the lifeblood of Britain, about one of its main arteries for world trade, the docks and ports of Britain. It has to advise, to alter and even to veto the careful plans of all the docks and harbours. They will be sent up to the Council for approval, modification or condemnation and the Council, on the strength of its wisdom, experience and knowledge, will submit to the Minister recommendations to support certain plans financially or to withhold financial support from others.
The Council can reorganise harbours. It can even doom harbours to slow extinction. It can freeze a harbour at its present capacity. It can group a number of harbours together. All this is a colossal task. In carrying it out, there are two essentials. One is cooperation and good will, and more and more evidence is coming of the co 1334 operation and good will of the whole of the industry concerned. Surely, however, it is essential to have on the Council men to whom the work of the Council is the whole of their life.
To illustrate by way of analogy, I believe that some day the country will recognise that Parliament would almost collapse tomorrow but for the fact that there are sc me full-time back benchers who man the Standing Committees and there are Ministers who give the whole of their time to Ministerial work. There may be a case in Parliament and in the Ports Council—Lord Rochdale was quite right to consider this—to bring in from outside men with wide and varied experience who will serve in a full-time capacity and bring to the Council their knowledge of finance, commerce and industry and all the things that we look for in the qualities of the members of the Ports Council. There is an unanswerable case for saying to some members of the Ports Council, "This is your life. This is something of which we want you to make a full-time job."
Even the Rochdale Report, which the Minister has followed in its general recommendation that the new Council should consist of part-timers, said that one man should be a full-timer. I quote from paragraph 147 of the Report:The Authority should consist of a small Board supported by a permanent staff…All members should…be appointed on a part-time bas[...]s, but the Chairman would naturally be expected to devote a substantial amount of time to the work…The permanent stiff should be headed by a Director…the Director, as chief executive of the Authority, should "have a seat on the Board''.For "Board" we can read "Council".
Even Rochdale himself, who was advocating largely a part-time Ports Council, recommended that at least there should be one full-time man, to be called a director, who should sit on the Council. When we debated this in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary defended the principle of part-time appointment; by saying that the Council was an advisory body. Anyone who has looked at the Bill, and read the debates in Committee on the power that we have given to the Council and the Minister, in conjunction with each other, and 1335 the formidable sanctions that the Bill will give to the Ports Council, might imagine that this new Council will be merely an advisory body.
In all our criticisms in Committee and in this debate we make no personal reflections on the men who have been appointed to the Ports Council. I think that the Minister has chosen well, and that he has the right to be proud of the fact that he very wisely chooses men to do jobs. He gives them a responsible job, having chosen men very carefully indeed.
Every hon. Member on this side of the House admires Lord Rochdale. With my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I had the privilege of attending a social meeting of the Docks and Harbours Association last week, where I met some of the members of the Ports Council—men of quality who will take their work seriously. I think that they are keenly interested in the whole spirit of this new legislation; but even the best man who is a part-time man can only do a part-time job. All the members at present on the Council will divide their ability between the job for which they are receiving a full-time salary and that for which they are receiving an honorarium. Their real job must come first.
This is why I urge the Minister seriously to consider the representations which were made in Committee and are being made now, not that the whole of the Ports Council should be full-time members, but that, if he will not accept our proposal for three, he will at least accept the Rochdale Committee's recommendation that one should be a full-timer. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to accept the Amendment.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. George Jeger (Goole)
I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and accept our Amendment. There was a strong debate on this in Committee, and the reply that we received from the Parliamentary Secretary, while as usual courteous, was not very informative or very full.
On looking through the Rochdale Committee's Report, one finds that there was a considerable amount of work to be done and ports to be visited by the 1336 Committee, yet it visited 15 ports out of about 350 before making its Report. That leaves an enormous number of ports, some important, some of lesser importance, that the Committee did not have the time to visit and report upon.
According to Clause 1, the Ports Council is to have the responsibility for formulating comprehensive plans for all the existing ports and for the provision of new ones. That surely will be a task big enough for a full-time board, working quite a long time into the future. Yet we were told in Committee that it was the intention of the Ports Council to have monthly meetings. How much work can be done by a part-time board having monthly meetings, with 350 ports under its control, a large number of which have not yet been visited and investigated? How many years will it take the members of the Council to get round to all the ports which will be submitting plans and suggestions for their own improvement?
It has been stressed that the ports will have to rely very largely on their own initiative, enterprise and energy in submitting plans to the Ports Council for their continued life or for improvement. If those plans or suggestions are to receive serious consideration, how can it be given by a body meeting only monthly? It will, therefore, have to rely on its permanent secretariat for any reports that it considers.
I hope that the Minister will take the question of the Ports Council and its duties, as laid down in Clause 1, really seriously, and see that it has effective machinery for carrying the burden which he is placing upon it.
§ Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)
I do not doubt that both sides of the House will agree that the case made by my hon. Friends on the range and complexity of the duties placed upon the Ports Council is manifest in the terms of the Bill. There is no doubt about the range of its responsibilities. The Minister would be the last to deny that. The nub of the argument is how best these responsibilities can be carried out by the people charged by the Minister with that task. I wonder sometimes, having sat through the Committee stage of the Bill and tried to understand the debates that took place in the House previously, and having read the Rochdale Committee's Report, just 1337 how seriously the Government are about seeing that this Ports Council is a success.
Let me remind the House of what happened in the early stages in Committee on the Bill. Apprehensions were expressed on both sides about the possibility that the Ports Council would interfere in a destructive manner with the functions of the harbour authorities. This brings me to the question of how serious the Government are in seeing a successful Council. When we were discussing whether we should have full-time members, the Parliamentary Secretary said that apprehensions have been expressed in the earlier stages of the Committee that there would be undue interference by the Council with the harbour authorities.
How much more likely it would be, he said, if we had full-time professionals that we would have that kind of interference of which some members of the Committee wished the harbour authorities to be relieved. I am suspicious of sentiments of that kind, because I feel that they imply that the Government might not be serious about making the Ports Council an effective instrument of policy.
After all, if we are all agreed that the range of obligations placed upon the Council is substantial, does anybody think that there are easily available people of quality over the diverse fields referred to in the Rochdale Report who can really discharge these responsibilities as a part-time job? The time of the amateur, whether it be at Lords, in the House of Commons, in industry, in nationalised industry or in bodies of this character, is past.
We shall listen to the Minister with great interest. We did not hear much of him in Committee, but he is here today. I hope that he will try to persuade us that it is possible to discharge this enormous responsibility and that it may be done by the part-timer, by the amateur. My hon. Friends and I are extremely sceptical about that. Anyhow, we believe that if one chooses an amateur, whether in politics or in industry, the field is necessarily limited. We ought to have the people who are best qualified, in the terms of the Rochdale Report, to discharge these responsibilities.
§ Mr. Silkin
I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friends on this Amendment. It is wise, at this stage, that we should see what the real difference between the two sides is at this moment. The fact is that the Opposition are not suggesting that every member of the National Ports Council should be on a permanent full-time basis. We know that there is to be a permanent staff. We understand that perfectly. We are merely asking that out of 11 members of the Council three shall be appointed on a full-time basis.
Even that three is cut down, because the Rochdale Committee, in paragraph 148, suggested that the director-general should have a seat on the board, and he is, of course, a full-time permanent member. So the difference now between us is only two. We suggest that, of the two, one should be the chairman. This is not a very unreasonable request to make. When we consider what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, it would seem that we were asking for the earth. We are not. We are merely asking for two further permanent full-time members on the Council.
§ Mr. Mellish
Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point. The director-general will not, of course, be a member of the Council. He will be one of the staff. We must get this clear.
§ Mr. Marples
I would put it this way, that he may or may not be a member of the Council. He can be, but it depends on the arrangements.
§ Mr. Marples
That is true. But I was trying to assist the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It seems that I always get into difficulties when I do that. But the hon. Member for Bermondsey asked a question. There is nothing in the Bill as it is that would prevent the director-general being a member of the Council. That is what I wanted to say, and I hope that I have made the situation clear.
§ Mr. Silkin
I am grateful for those observations because they add a great 1339 deal to my argument at this stage. The fact is that the Rochdale Committee itself suggested that the director-general should have a seat on the board, and it is i interesting to know that the Ministers apparently at this moment quite unaware whether the director-general will have a seat on the board or not.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary argued that the Government wanted the Council to be outward-looking and not inward-looking, and he was afraid that if there was a permanent group of directors on the Council they might lose some of their advisory faculties and become rather more executive. That might well be true if we were thinking that all the members of the Council were to be permanent and full-time. But we are not. We are suggesting that three members of the Council should be full-time.
This would merely give continuity in the Council. It allows one to have all the other members possessing part-time membership and coming from various widely diffused experiences and skills. With this idea we are very much in sympathy. The reason why we want continuity and permanence is shown by the Report of the Rochdale Committee, which says that it would be of the utmost importance to attract men of high standing with a varying background of experience.
The Committee states, in paragraph 148:We must stress that the success of the Authority in gaining the confidence and cooperation of the industry and in pursuing a logical and determined course of port development and planning will depend largely on the quality of its Board members and staff, and, in particular, on the quality of its Chairman and Director.In other words, we must have a very strong Council if we are to have the industry running well and if we are to gain the enthusiastic support of the harbour authorities and all those engaged in the operations.
I know that, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing to stop us having full-time members. He said that it had been the practice over the past 12 years or so not to make this a statutory obligation. But the Government are proposing to do something new here. They are 1340 bringing into being a new concept of our ports and harbours, and it seems to me that if they are going to do that they must start as they mean to continue. They must gain the sympathy and understanding of those who will be engaged in running the harbours right from the very first moment. One can do this, it seems to me, by saying that one is very serious about this.
I have no doubt that the members of the Council will be the most highly-qualified people that the Minister can find, but I believe that it is right that it should be understood right from the start that they are to do a full-time job. The Rochdale Committee talked about all members being appointed on a part-time basis, but it made a distinction even there when it said that the chairman, on the other hand, would naturally be expected to devote a substantial amount of time to the work. We know that the chairman will be devoting a substantial amount of time to the work.
I would say that in the case of the chairman, as in the case of the two other members about whom we are speaking, this should be a full-time appointment. It seems to me that there is not all that much difference in principle between us if both sides of the House are determined that the harbour industry shall, in future, be run as well, as efficiently and in as up-to-date a manner as possible.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put his finger on the point when he said that this is something about which, in Committee, there was a head-on clash of views. I believe that the Opposition sincerely hold to their view that this Amendment should be written into the Statute and that, whether the Minister thinks it right or not and whether the duties turn out to be less than require it, there should be a provision for having three full-time members written into the Bill.
I disagree with hon. Members opposite. First, as the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend said that there is nothing in the wording of the Clause to prevent the Minister appointing the chairman or other members of 1341 the council as full-time members if it should prove necessary or desirable in the light of experience.
When the Bill becomes an Act, it will probably fall to be put into operation by the next Government. I say this to show that it is not a question of my being awkward, because it is possible that someone else will use these powers. There are a number of precedents of statutes setting up certain bodies, and none of them contains a requirement that the chairman or any other member shall be full-time. But we have appointed full-time members where it has proved necessary for the business.
The iron and Steel Board and the British Railways Board have no provision that there should be a full-time chairman, but we have a full-time chairman and more than three full-time members, because it is necessary. Surely, it is necessary to see what the nature of the task is and then, if necessary, to appoint members full-time.
The hon. Member for Deptford, whose father was a solicitor of great authority, has never, I will gamble, formed a public or a private limited company and inserted in its articles the number of full-time and part-time members of the board, because he would not know the nature of the business and how it would develop. I have never known it to be done.
The National Coal Board is another example where there is no requirement for a full-time chairman, but we have Lord Robens as its full-time Chairman. Other examples are the Atomic Energy Authority, the Docks Board, the Gas Council, the Cotton Board and the White Fish Authority.
I hold these views both from personal experience in private life and from my experience in my present job, and I hold them as sincerely as hon. Members opposite hold theirs. I think that the Minister of the day should have the necessary flexibility to make members full-time or part-time according to the way he thinks things are going. It is difficult at this stage to say why there should be three full-time members but not four. Why not two? On what scientific basis and evidence should we decide that three is sacrosanct? It is very difficult to know what is the reason. 1342 I want to make another distinction—
§ Mr. Marples
From my experience of the other nationalised industries. That is why I left a margin. I did not say nine or 10, but between seven and 11. That is exactly the sort of flexibility we want. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for assisting me in the matter.
§ Mr. Mellish
Of course, we could easily put in the words "at least three" if that would get the right hon. Gentleman out of his trouble.
§ Mr. Marples
No, it would not, because there is no basis for the hon. Gentleman saying three. It may be that more than three or less than three are needed, or none at all.
I want to point out that the National Ports Council is not to be an executive body running an industry. That is where the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) is wrong. He talked about the Port of London Authority in this connection. Bat the Ports Council will not be managing a particular port as the Port of London Authority does from day to day. The Opposition made great play in Committee with the fact that it was not the Council's function to be responsible for day-to-day management.
The primary business of the Council will be to come to decisions on matters of policy, the material for which has been prepared by the director-general and his full-time start The point is that if I am proved wrong about the number, then the matter can be put right by my successor. or even by myself, if we win the next General Election with the same majority as we had at the last. Therefore, we have the option. Our hands are not tied. We are not fettered or rigid; we are flexible.
I am wondering, as a matter of fact, whether hon Members opposite are really as confident as they would wish us to believe that they will win the next election. If they do, they could make the number three or four. Therefore, there is no point in pressing the Amend 1343 ment. If they press it, it will show that they are not as confident as they say they are. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this point, because it is a fundamental difference of opinion.
Another difficulty which I have found during my four years or so at my present Ministry—
§ Mr. Marples
It is not too long; indeed, another four years would be suitable.
As I was saying, I have found during my four years or so at the Ministry of Transport that it is not easy to attract to the nationalised industries men of the right quality. There are many reasons for this. The first is that, generally speaking, we cannot offer them the financial attraction and inducement which private enterprise gives to its top management. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dr. Beeching."] Dr. Beeching is an exception which proves the rule. He is the only man in the country who has had a wage freeze for five years because, had he stayed at I.C.I., he would have received an increase in remuneration.
I have had a great deal of difficulty, first, on the financial point and, secondly, because a number of people in private life do not wish to get dragged into the controversy which necessarily surrounds public life. I think that I have made more appointments to nationalised industries in the last few years than any other Minister, and I know the difficulties that I have had. I know that Lord Rochdale would not and could not be a full-time member. He will devote the majority of his time to the National Ports Council, but his other commitments are such that he must retain an interest in certain things because they have been part of his life.
Therefore, we run up against the difficulty that he will only be able to devote the major portion of his time to the Council. But he is a very able man and I would be very loath not to have him as chairman, because he is passionately desirous of making the job a success and has the background of knowledge which he acquired as Chairman of the Rochdale Committee. I think from the country's point of view that his is an admirable appointment.
1344 It will be difficult to get the people we want if we make the job a full-time one, but if that is necessary, then we can try. After all, the Minister of the day can decide to make people full-time if he so wishes. The party opposite can do this if it wishes should it win the election by any chance, which is most unlikely. Then hon. Members opposite could have three, four or two full-time members.
It would be wrong to attach such rigid conditions to any business before it is floated because, as it grows or declines, the requirements are different. Therefore, to write a rigid figure into the Bill for full-time members would be wrong. I am quite certain that I shall not convince hon. Members opposite in this matter. I believe that what I have now said is true in the same way as I believe that hon. Members opposite are sincere in what they have said.
§ Mr. Hoy
What the right hon. Gentleman has proved, if anything, is that we made very good progress in Committee because he was not there. We cannot all hedge our bets like the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is very good at covering up. I remember that when he left his own business he said, "I have got rid of my shares, but, having done so, if I ever cease to be a Minister I have taken the precaution of having the option to repurchase them when I get out."
§ Mr. Marples
That is not true, as I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally extremely fair, will agree if he will look at the statement which I made. I have no right to acquire these shares. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said.
§ Mr. Marples
I think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will remember that it was made quite clear in the statement that I had no right to buy back those shares.
§ Mr. Hoy
There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from getting the shares back. That is as far as I will go today. I do not want to take the 1345 matter too far, but only to comment on it and to say that we have not all got that opportunity.
The right hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in convincing the House and the country that, if the Government choose to pay £24,000 a year to a man, it is for his part-time services. I am sure that no hon. Member would try to argue that anyone receiving £500 a week from the Government was being paid for a part-time job. This really is an extravagant use of language by the right hon. Gentleman. He may be saying that a principle has not been laid down, hut we expect him to lay it down.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we argue like this because we do not know exactly what the Ports Council will have to do. But we do know what it will do. The Rochdale Committee was appointed to find out what needed to be done to bring our ports up to date and, as a result of its Report, the new Council is to come into existence. We believe that, if the Council is to undertake the job we want it to do, there should be three full time members.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to distort my argument. Tories plead for fair play for themselves and then always seek to distort the arguments of their opponents. I did not use Europort as an example of management in comparing it with the Ports Council. I pointed out that this one port in Europe was having £75 million spent on it to fit it for the trade and industry ahead. I reminded the House that, under the Bill, we are providing only £50 million—which may be doubled by Resolution of the House—for the whole country and that the
§ Ports Council, working in a part-time capacity, is to supervise the spending. I did not compare the managements of single ports.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ The right hon. Gentleman knows that each of our ports will have its own management committee. We do not intend to substitute the Ports Council for the Port of London Authority, or for any otter port authority. It was not worthy of him to distort our argument. He would have done better to have argued against our proposition.
§ We believe that if the Ports Council is to supervise the rehabilitation of our ports then it is essential that it should include those members prepared to give their full time to the job. That is not asking too much. We cannot afford delay. It is important to get on with the job quickly if we are to hold our own against competitors overseas.
§ It is for that reason that speed is essential from the beginning. It may be, once the schemes are working, that in the course of time we may not require three full-time members of the Ports Council, but it is essential at the beginning, if the work is to be done efficiently and speedily, that there should be no delay and that three members should devote their full time to the work. The Minister's argument was entirely unsatisfactory to its and, for that reason, we shall show our dissent in the Division Lobby.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 228.1349
|Division No. 34.]||AYES||[5.16 p.m.|
|Albu, Austen||Brockway, A. Fenner||Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Ede, Rt. Hon. C.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)||Callaghan, James||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Carmichael, Neil||Edwards, Walter (Stepney)|
|Barnett, Guy||Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Evans, Albert|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Chapman, Donald||Fitch, Alan|
|Boaney, Alan||Cliffe, Michael||Fletcher, Eric|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Collick, Percy||Foley, Maurice|
|Benn, Anthony Wedgwood||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cronin, John||Forman, J. C.|
|Benson, Sir George||Crosland, Anthony||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Blackburn, F.||Dalyell, Tam||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Blyton, William||Darling, George||Ginsburg, David|
|Boardman, H.||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Grey, Charles|
|Bowles, Frank||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)|
|Boyden, James||Deer, George||Griffiths, W. (Exchange)|
|Bradley, Tom||Dempsey, James||Gunter, Ray|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Dodds, Norman||Hamilton, William (West Fife)|
|Hannan, William||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)|
|Harper, Joseph||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ross, William|
|Hayman, F. H.||Manuel, Archie||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Healey, Denis||Mapp, Charles||Silkin, John|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Marsh, Richard||Silverman, Julies (Aston)|
|Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Mason, Roy||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Hilton, A. V.||Mellish, R. J.||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Holman, Percy||Mendelson, J. J.||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Holt, Arthur||Millan, Bruce||Small, William|
|Hooson, H. E.||Milne, Edward||Snow, Julian|
|Houghton, Douglas||Mitchison, G. R.||Sorensen, R. W,|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Monslow, Walter||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hoy, James H.||Moody, A. S.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Steele, Thomas|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Moyle, Arthur||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Mulley, Frederick||Stonehouse, John|
|Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Neal, Harold||Stones, William|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||O'Malley, B. K.||Taverne, D.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Owen, Will||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Jeger, George||Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Parker, John||Thomson, C. M. (Dundee. E.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)||Parkin, B. T.||Thornton, Ernest|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Pavitt, Laurence||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Tomney, Frank|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pentland, Norman||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Kelley, Richard||Popplewell, Ernest||Warbey, William|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Prentice, R. E.||Whitlock, William|
|King, Dr. Horace||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Probert, Arthur||Willey, Frederick|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Randall, Harry||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Rankin, John||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Lubbock, Eric||Redhead, E. C.||Woof, Robert|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Rhodes, H.||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|McBride, N.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Zilliacus, K.|
|McCann, John||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Robertson, John (Paisley)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|McLeavy, Frank||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Harvie Anderson, Miss|
|Allason, James||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hastings, Stephen|
|Anderson, D. C||Costain, A. P.||Hay, John|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Coulson, Michael||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Critchley, Julian||Hiley, Joseph|
|Barber, Anthony||Cunningham, Knox||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Barter, John||Dance, James||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin|
|Batsford, Brian||d'Avigdor - Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Holland, Philip|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hollingworth, John|
|Bidgood, John C.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Hopkins, Alan|
|Biffen, John||Duncan, Sir James||Hornby, R. P.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Duthie, Sir William (Banff)||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)|
|Bishop, Sir Patrick||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Errington, Sir Eric||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John|
|Bossom, Hon. Clive||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hughes-Young, Michael|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Farr, John||Hulbert, Sir Norman|
|Box, Donald||Finlay, Graeme||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Braine, Bernard||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Brewis, John||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Jackson, John|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||James, David|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Jennings, J. C.|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Bullard, Denys||Glover, Sir Douglas||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Glyn, Dr. Afan (Clapham)||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Burden, F. A.||Goodhart, Philip||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Goodhew, Victor||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Gower, Raymond||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Grant-Ferris, R.||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)||Green, Alan||Kirk, Peter|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Gresham Cooke, R.||Kitson, Timothy|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Grosvenor, Lord Robert||Lambton, Viscount|
|Chataway, Christopher||Gurden, Harold||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Lindsay, Sir Martin|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Cole, Norman||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Cooke, Robert||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Cooper, A. E.||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Longden, Gilbert|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Pitt, Dame Edith||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Mac Arthur, Ian||Pounder, Rafton||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)||Prior, J, M. L.||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Maddan, Martin||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter|
|Maginnis, John E.||Pym, Francis||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Maitland, Sir John||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Marples, Fit. Hon. Ernest||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Marshall, Sir Douglas||Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)||Turner, Colin|
|Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Renton, Rt. Hon. David||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Mawby, Ray||Ridsdale, Julian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Russell, Sir Ronald||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Mills, Stratton||Shaw, M.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Skeet, T. H. H.||Walker, Peter|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Wall, Patrick|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Morgan, William||Speir, Rupert||Webster, David|
|Morrison, John||Stainton, Keith||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Stanley, Hon. Richard||Whitelaw, William|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Stevens, Geoffrey||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Stodart, J. A.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Storey, Sir Samuel||Wise, A. R.|
|Osborn, John (Hallam)||Studholme, Sir Henry||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Summers, Sir Spencer||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Tapsell, Peter||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Partridge, E.||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Peel, John||Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Teeling, Sir William||Mr. McLaren and Mr. R. W. Elliott.|
|Pitman, Sir James||Temple, John M.|
§ Amendment made: In page 2, line 23 after "and", insert "to have".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg to move, in page 2, line 26 after "workers", to insert:to have wide experience as persons employed in doing work falling to be done in the course of the management of harbours or the carrying out of harbour operations and to have shown capacity as persons so employed".
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)
With this Amendment it will also be convenient to discuss the following Amendment: In page 2, line 30 at the end to insert:and shall include at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had experience and shown capacity in an organisation of workers connected with the dock industry".
§ Mr. Mellish
Do I understand that we shall be able to divide on our own Amendment if we so require?
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
My intention is to speak only on the Government Amendment, because, although both Amendments refer to membership of the Council, there is the important difference that my Amendment fulfils an assurance which I gave in Standing 1350 Committee that a form of words would be found to extend the qualifications for membership of the Council to include persons having experience of employment in harbours. The Amendment therefore provides for persons having experience of work falling to be done in the carrying out of harbour operations as well as work done by harbour authorities to be eligible for appointment.
I can anticipate one question which I may be asked by hon. Members opposite and say that we have taken legal advices and that there is no doubt that this wording covers dockers who will therefore be fully qualified for membership of the Council.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The orderly way to do this is to wait until we have dealt with the first Amendment and then there will be every opportunity for the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) to move his Amendment. He may discus it now.
§ Mr. Mellish
We are again obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for going a long way to meet what we asked for 1351 in Committee. In discussing the membership of the Council, we have to pay close attention to the membership of the Advisory Panel, because when the National Ports Council is appointed, I should be very surprised if those who are now working on the Advisory Panel are not appointed to full membership of the Council.
I make it clear that what I have to say is in no way a criticism of the individuals concerned. We recognise them to be men of high quality and I have no doubt that they will do a first-class job under Lord Rochdale to the best of their ability. However, in spite of what has been said by the Rochdale Committee and in spite of Government assurances that they were looking for men with wide experience and without specially vested interests in the dock and shipping industries, we feel that there is a tremendous weight of people who have what I call an employer's interest. I think that we have moved from the day long ago when it might have been said of us that we believed that anyone coming from the employer's side was not as qualified as anybody else, but the fact remains that we have connections with the Elder Dempster and Stag lines and so on, which is all right and proper, but which is employer's experience. We believe that on the Council there should be someone with expert knowledge of the dock industry itself.
The name of Mr. Lewis Wright has been mentioned as being appointed to represent the trade union side on the National Ports Council. As I said in Committee, Mr. Wright is a fine person, and I am sure that he will do a first-class job. But he is the general secretary of the Weavers' Association. I have no doubt that it will not take him long to acquire all the necessary knowledge of shipping and the docks, and I am sure that he has a wide knowledge, apart from matters affecting his own trade union. I have no objection to his being a member of the Council. But we want to ensure that there will be somebody on the Council who has come straight from the organisations representing the dock workers.
1352 I have no vested interest in the matter, for myself, or on behalf of my trade union, or any individual in it. I am not concerned who is appointed from the dock workers' trade unions. But the Minister must remember that we are dealing with an industry with a bitter past. It wants to forget it, but at times it cannot. We must therefore ensure that the Council is capable of earning the support of those who work in the industry—the dock employees. They want to know that upon the Council there is somebody who knows them and understands their point of view.
The National Dock Labour Board scheme has been a success because, when Ernest Bevin and, later, George Isaacs, promoted it, it was thought essential that the Board should have on it men who came direct from the industry, and that that principle should operate right down the line, even to the disciplinary committees. There used to be a school of thought which held that it was a good thing to have people outside the industry concerned—people who did not have any particular vested interest in the industry. In fact, that is why I object to some of the present nominees for the Council. It was thought that, especially from the trade union point of view, it might be a good thing not to have a dock workers' representative.
But history has shown that it is necessary to have someone whom the dockers can trust and respect. I am sure that those dock workers would be the first bitterly to oppose any Dock Labour Board scheme in which there was no trade union representation. They realise that even on questions of discipline one of their own members should be represented on the body concerned.
That is why, in good faith, we suggested to the Minister that the Council, in order to gain the good will of the men—and it must do that, because in its long-term planning it may decide that certain harbours or a certain dock should close, and this will result in some redundancy and alteration—somebody on the Council must be able to sell its ideas to the men. Who is that to be? Is it to be Lord Rochdale? I do not think so. Is it to be Mr. Lewis Wright, of the Weavers' Association? I do not think so. I should have thought that 1353 it was essential to have a man who has come from one of the unions of dock workers—a man who understands the arguments and who can sell those arguments to the men.
If we want the Council to do a good job it is surely not asking too much to accept our Amendment, which makes it clear that there will be representation of the dock workers' unions on the Council. At the moment, only seven members have been appointed. There is scope for more, and I want the Minister to accept our Amendment. I must tell him that we feel strongly about this—strongly enough to take the matter to a division. The fact that we shall lose in the end does not matter; we shall have registered our protest. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the question. If he does so, I am sure that he will be allowed to withdraw his Amendment in favour of ours.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
There is one point that I should like to clarify. The hon. Member twice referred to the Opposition's form of wording as opposed to the Government's. We have never regarded these two Amendments as alternatives. Neither were they considered so in Committee. Our Amendment leaves no doubt that people employed in humbler positions in the docks will be eligible for membership, but the form of words used in the Opposition's Amendment is a term of art which specifically provides for trade union representation.
§ Mr. Mellish
We were asked to discuss both Amendments together. It might have been easier to have had separate debates. We shall not oppose the Government Amendment, but we think that the words in our Amendment should also be added. Therefore, our Amendment should also be supported.
§ Dr. King
This is becoming rather a complex debate. We are discussing two Amendments which are germane to each other, in a way, but which are really very different. The first one has been moved by the Minister in furtherance of a promise made in Committee that membership of the Council would be open to the humblest docker. The second Amendment demands something that the Minister has not yet offered, namely, the appoint 1354 ment to the Council of trade unionists with experience in the organisation of dock workers.
It may seem a little ungracious of me to raise what may be, in the last analysis, merely a drafting point. I appreciate the skill of the draftsmen. Some of us have said critical things about them in Committee, but they have usually been right. But we are now discussing the qualifications of members of the Council, and the field from which they can be drawn. The Government Amendment inserts, after "workers", and as a new set of qualifications, persons who havewide experience as persons employed in doing work Jailing to be done in the course of the management of harbours…But in subsection (2) we already have a reference topersons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, tie management of harbours…To my mind, both provisions seem to mean the same thing.
We want to include as persons eligible for membership people who are not necessarily managers. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who dealt with this Amendment in Committee, said:It does not necessarily follow that because a man was once a dock labourer he will have a sectional interest…whereas as if he was concerned in the management of a harbour he could be impartial and unbiased.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 21st January, 1964; c. 136.]We want this to be a career open to talent and we want to feel—and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is with us on this—that dock workers should be among dose eligible for membership of the Council. By his wording the Minister is trying to give us that. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary conceded the principle during the Committee stage discussions. But the wording to which I have referred seems to be tied to managerial levels. It is true that the Amendment goes on…or the carrying out of harbour operations and to have shown capacity as persons so employed".I should have thought that one reference to "managerial" was sufficient, and that the Amendment which the Minister has moved to meet the point which we raised during the Committee 1355 stage discussions meets that point; but that it also carries with it some unnecessary words which the Minister might think of taking out.
We regard the Amendment which we are discussing with this Amendment as one of the most important to the Bill. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is present. I hope that he will take part in this debate. Again we seek to strengthen the Council. The Minister realises the importance of having a trade unionist on the Council because one has been appointed. There is no doubt that, like any managerial body in the world designed to do a complex job of managing or advising industry, the Council should include a member with trade union experience. We need not argue that all over again. I would merely comment that we sought to have that written into the Bill as a statutory obligation but the Minister would not accept the obligation. He has carried it out, however, by appointing one.
Dock workers are a group apart. They have loyalties to each other as deep as those of the miners. In almost every way their work differs from other industries. The difficulty of achieving complete decasualisation shows how different is their work. I have some knowledge of the dock workers in my own city, a knowledge gained from over forty years of very close contact with them. But I confess frankly that I know little about dock workers compared with the amount of knowledge possessed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), both of whom worked in the trade union organisation of the dock workers before becoming hon. Members of this House. I believe that if we are to carry both sides of this great industry with us, there must be a member of the Council who is not merely a trade unionist but knows the point of view of the dock workers and who, I would say almost literally, could talk to them from time to time in their own language.
I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister of this. Having accepted our first point, that being a dock worker does not debar a man from being eligible—if qualified by experience, quality, character, ability and the rest—to come on to the Council, we 1356 hope that the Minister will concede the second point, that there should be a dockers' trade union leader on the Council.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)
My only reason for intervening in this debate is because I regard this Amendment as having a distinct bearing on the democratic processes common to public utility undertakings. I shall be very surprised if the Minister declines to accept it, because if he does that would be running counter to what appears in previous legislation connected with nationalised industries and other public utility undertakings.
I had some experience of this when I was called on to introduce legislation designed to nationalise the mines and the electricity supply authority. It occurred to me—indeed, representations were made to me by the organisations of the workers in those industries—that there should be representation from the trade unions which organised the workers in them. If the Minister will consult the legislation—in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, it appears in Section 46, I do not recall which Section in the other legislation—he will discover that on the creation of the boards of control several persons were appointed, including the chairman—I think I can quote the actual words:…to represent substantial proportions of the personsengaged in the industry. That is quite specific. In this case where an Amendment has been submitted there appear the following words which are of course familiar to the Minister. He has been piloting this Bill through its various stages and will be much more familiar with them than I, because to be frank it was only this afternoon that I took the opportunity to look at the Bill—
§ Mr. Mellish
The Minister was not seen during the Committee stage proceedings and that was why they were so successful.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I was not aware of that. But, even though it is so, with respect to my hon. Friend, I would acquit the Minister of any discourtesy. It does happen that Cabinet Ministers cannot always find it possible to attend the sittings of Standing Committees. We 1357 know the right hon. Gentleman is a man of considerable activity and resource—sometimes we think more resource than activity—but undoubtedly he is a man of parts. His various preoccupations and occupations entitle him to apply himself to that particular activity which calls for his immediate attention.
May I quote the words to which I have already referred which appear in Clause 1(5):The members of the Council shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the management of harbours, shipping, inland transport, industrial, commercial, financial or economic matters, applied science or the organisation of workers…".Those words follow very closely the words that are contained in the legislation to which I have referred, but there is a considerable difference between representation from an organisation of workers and, as the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends denotes, which provides for representation specifically from an organisation of workers employed in the industry.
We know what has happened on several occasions when boards of management have been created, public corporations and the like. Representatives from the Trades Union Congress have been appointed, but not necessarily specifically from the unions engaged in a particular industry. That is occasionally desirable. It is part of the democratic process, but it is even more democratic and more desirable, and in my view more essential, when we are dealing with a particular range of industry to have direct and specific representation from the organisation primarily concerned with the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) spoke about the peculiar activities of dock labourers. Many years ago—more years ago than I sometimes care to remember, back in 1911 and 1912, which is a long time ago, and for many years afterwards—I was associated with dock labourers in almost every harbour and port of the country. I know a great deal about the peculiarities of dock labourers. They are almost a class by themselves, much more so than are miners. They are very clannish, even more clannish in relation to particular ports and harbours in which, 1358 I was going to say they reside—many of them reside in districts contiguous to docks and harbours.
In some of the London docks the work is quite different from the work in the docks of Liverpool. Even on the Clyde, with which I was familiar many years ago, what happens in the Princes Dock may be quite different from what happens in the Rothesay Dock. In ports on the Bristol Channel, where there is a great deal of tramp trade, the work again is quite different. It is extremely important that this peculiar knowledge, this specialised knowledge, should be available to the National Ports Council.
I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter. I can understand his desire to bring in somebody associated with the general body of workers' organisations. If he appoints someone to the National Ports Council who is associated with the textile industry—
§ Mr. Mellish
He has done so. He has appointed Mr. Lewis Wright, the general secretary of the Weavers' Association. He is a very honourable man, but we want a trade unionist who knows all about docks.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I have not the acquaintance of Mr. Wright, but I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says. No doubt. Mr. Wright has considerable knowledge of weaving and the textile industry, but there is no clear relationship between the textile industry and the dock labour industry so far as I know, although I have no doubt that the ingenuity and fertile mind of the Minister could devise something for our edification.
Someone who is connected with the coal mining industry might be appointed. Now and again officials of the National Union of Mineworkers are called upon to retire and subsequently appointed to posts in public utility undertakings. I take no exception to that, but it is much more useful to have someone who understands dock labour, someone who, perhaps, has worked in the docks and is acquainted with the peculiarities of dock labour. I should go so far as to say—although I do not want to be misunderstood—that there should be someone who can talk to the dockers in their own language, or perhaps translate dockers' language for the benefit of the National Ports Council.
1359 All these are considerations which in my judgment have some weight. I hope they have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. I know that on occasion he can be very accommodating. He has a generous mind when he is inclined in that direction. I hope that on this occasion he will realise as a democrat that he must assist in the democratic process of bringing in people who understand the realities of particular industries and at the same time that he will seek the view of people in the particular industry with which we are concerned.
If he has not gone too far already in the direction of appointments, I hope he will give the matter rather more mature consideration and appoint someone from the unions associated with dock labour which will satisfy the workers in the industry and not prove to be disadvantageous to somebody who would like to be appointed on the Council but who for rather sound reasons is left outside.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
I support the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends because of the experiences I had some years ago when on occasion I found myself in office having some disputes with the dockers about the continuation of their labour. Dockers live in a very segregated community. I do not think that many people would live in the area unless they were dockers. They have a long history of solidarity and faith in their leadership. In that, they are very much like miners. People would not live in a mining village unless they were connected with mining.
My experience was that the most important thing was to be able to negotiate with someone whom the dockers trust and who from the dockers' experience can explain to people who have been brought up in a different environment exactly what the docker feels and why he feels it. Therefore, I think that this Amendment is a very important one if this great industry is to be carried on with a feeling of mutual respect between the new Council and the people employed in the docks.
I heard an hon. Member talk about "the humblest docker". I have never met a humble one. What the humblest one is like I cannot imagine. They are 1360 men who are proud of their calling. Although dock work is generally classed as unskilled, it is, in fact, very highly skilled. Dock workers have a right to feel proud of being able to discharge their obligations efficiently. We should not underrate their capacity for feeling collectively and finding people who can express their collective view so that it can be understood even in the most dignified quarters.
I therefore sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment and get this great industry, under its new framework, started in conditions in which he has the right to expect that he will receive the co-operation of all concerned. If he can get that at the price of accepting this Amendment, I assure him that he will do a great deal for peace and continuous employment in this industry.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Jeger
I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about the Amendment. I have a feeling that if the right hon. Gentleman were suddenly called to a Cabinet meeting, or up the M.1 or something spectacular like that, the Parliamentary Secretary would be much more amenable to reason. He showed himself in Committee to be far more ready to accept our Amendments than did the Minister. If hon. Members look at the Bill as amended and the number of our Amendments which were accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, they will find that it will take them and him a long time to count them.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are 156 Amendments for consideration today, most of which implement promises made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. Of the 156 Amendments which we are considering today, 127 are Government Amendments, which points to the fact that our arguments in Committee were effective. The Amendments which we suggested, even if they were not in the correct wording according to the Parliamentary draftsmen, contained the right ideas. Most of the 127 Government Amendments are designed to bring our Amendments in Committee on to the Statute Book.
§ Mr. Jeger
I think that one Amendment emanated from the hon. Member. I recall that when we put down Amendments to which he gave his verbal support, he abstained from voting.
The right hon. Gentleman is being a little stubborn about this. I ask him to look at the situation in the nationalised industries and other industries which have been taken over in one way or another. There is always a little teething trouble in any new organisation, and the workers are always suspicious, quite rightly, because of the difficulties which they have had over so many years. They are always suspicious unless they can rely on somebody expressing their point of view on the new board of directors or the new council or whichever body is to take charge of that section of the industry.
If the right hon. Gentleman will include on the Ports Council someone in whom the workers in the industry have faith and confidence, he will go a long way to ensuring that the redevelopment and reorganisation which is to take place will take place with the consent, co-operation and good will of the workers in the industry. That is what we want and this is one way of achieving it. With the record which we have behind us in the Committee proceedings of constructive Amendments and suggestions which we have made, most of which have been accepted, I ask him to consider whether he would not be wise to accept this Amendment, too.
§ Mr. Ernest Thornton (Farnworth)
I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I rise only because of the implied criticism of the appointment of a weaver to the Council. As an ex-weaver I cannot let that pass. I should like to stress that there is no more honourable job.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for his remarks about Mr. Lewis Wright, who is an extremely experienced trade union officer with more than 30 years' experience. He has been my friend and trade union colleague for 35 years, and there is no one in the country more acquainted with the broad range of trade union and labour problems than he. I noticed that, in Committee, it was sug 1362 gested rather facetiously that seamen and other people of this type might be appointed to the Cotton Board. On the Cotton Board I think that we have had a docker, and certainly a miner and certainly at engineer.
This is no new principle, and I am not conscious of any objection being lodged in those cases. I certainly am not averse to docker being additionally appointed to the Ports Council, but I should resent any suggestion that my friend and colleague, Mr. Lewis Wright, who has a great background of experience, is not fitted to cope with the broad issues of labour problems. He would be the first to admit that he does not understand all the intricate details of the dockers' work and of harbours, but I understand that that is not the principle involved. On the Cotton Board we have al ways accepted that independent minds brought to the problem can be extremely helpful in determining broad policy issues.
§ Mr. Mellish
One of the problems, too, is that this will be a part-time body. Here we have a brilliant trade unionist. There is no question about Mr. Lewis Wright's ability to learn from the ground floor about the dock industry and its difficulties. But we felt that alongside him or a man like him ought to be a trade union representative who has lived and worked in the docks, who knows the answers, and who at the end of the day can go back to the men and explain them. None of us at any time has said anything against Mr. Wright. His ability is beyond question.
§ Mr. Marples
I am sure that the whole House agrees that Mr. Lewis Wright has had a most distinguished record, and not only in his own trade union. His experience has included membership of the T.U.C. General Council and of the T.U.C. Economic Committee, membership and chairmanship of the British. Productivity Council and membership of the Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. He has been quite outstanding in labour relations as well as in his managerial capacity, and I have the utmost confidence in him. I hope that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) does not think that any derogatory remarks have been made about 1363 him, because I do not think that any hon. Member wishes to suggest that.
We are considering two Amendments. The first is permissive. It sets out the qualifications of certain people from among whom the Minister can make appointments to the National Ports Council. The second is mandatory. It says that the Minister must appoint a man from a dockers' trade union to the Council.
May I start with the first, which is permissive? This has been common form in the past, and in the Bill the words which we have chosen are practically the same, and certainly have the same meaning, as those in the Act which was passed by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in 1946. The words which he used in Section 2(3) were permissive and not mandatory:The chairman and other members of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister of Fuel and Power (in this Act referred to as 'the Minister') from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration or the organisation of workers.In Clause 1(5) of the Bill we have:The members of the Council shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the management of harbours, shipping, inland transport, industrial, commercial, financial or economic matters, applied science or the organisation of workers…Thus we have in the Bill, virtually word for word, what the right hon. Gentleman had in his Measure in 1946; that among those represented will be people who will be suitable to be appointed to the Council. This will ensure that there will be someone who has had experience of the organisation of workers, and we accept that such a person should be on the Council. We are all aware that Ministers come and go. In this case it will be up to the Minister of the day to decide and we believe that this should not be laid down in a mandatory way.
I would like, first, to deal with the Government Amendment, which is permissive, and get that out of the way before dealing with the mandatory Amendment, if I may call it that. I am advised that the words 1364…persons employed in doing work falling to be done in the course of the management…make it clear that we are concerned with the people who are employed in the industry as distinct from persons with managerial qualifications. In other words, we are trying to meet the objections which were raised in Committee and to widen further the provisions of the earlier legislation so that it is clear that employees have the right, if they show aptitude, to be selected.
We accept the principle of that and I hope that the wording of the Government Amendment achieves that end. I am advised that it does. It shows that there is nothing to stop anyone, whatever his capacity, from being selected. I will, in due course, have further consultation about this to make absolutely certain that the wording meets this point and carries out the wishes of hon. Members.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says two things which have never been said before. The first is that it should be mandatory to have somebody whom the Minister must choose—not that it is up to the Minister to choose but that it is mandatory for him to do so—and that he must choose somebody who has had experience of the organisation of workers, and the second is that the person chosen must be of a particular class of worker in that particular industry.
I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. I appreciate what he is trying to get at; that there might be a difficult industry with an unfortunate history, in which the men have long memories. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was right to call attention to the solidarity of people like miners. It has always been our intention that we should have people with experience from various walks of life and that is why, in iron and steel, transport and other legislation it has not been said that one must have a representative of that industry's organised labour. This is particularly so in the transport industry legislation because my intention has been from the beginning that the Council should not in any way represent sectional interests.
1365 Any narrowing of the terms which could introduce the possibility of such a development would be undesirable because if we accepted the Opposition Amendment we would immediately be besieged by a number of other people requiring and demanding sectional representation. We might have port interests—the interests of port authorities, port users, and so on—urging representation, in which case the whole managerial function of this body would be destroyed. If we gave the principle away in one case we would be called upon to give it away in others. To require me to do these things would place me under great pressure.
The same thing would happen with geographical interests. I have already had correspondence with a number of hon. Members and I have been asked, "What about having someone from Wales?" Hon. Members may not be surprised to learn that I have also been asked, "What about having someone from Scotland?" I have deliberately striven lo avoid getting sectional interests on the Council because I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. The paramount need is to have men like Mr. Wright, men who are outstanding in their spheres of activity, and not to have a corpus of individuals whose main qualification is their connection in one way or another with a part of the industry.
I may be wrong, but I cannot think of anything on the Statute Book which has the sort of provision that is suggested in the Opposition Amendment. It is certainly not in transport legislation. It is not in legislation covering the iron and steel industry or the nationalised coal industry and I believe that to accept the Amendment would be to introduce an entirely new principle. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey to withdraw his Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was at his most persuasive today and I am always a little apprehensive when kind words from him are directed towards me. Any flattery from him puts me on my guard; but I was grateful. I agree that it is not always easy to conduct a Bill through 1366 its Committee stage. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to say "Thank you" for the really remarkable job that was done in Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am grateful to him. If a Minister has Parliamentary Secretaries—and I have three of them—he must, as senior hon. Members who have had Ministerial responsibility realise, delegate duties and responsibilities to them. It is ften said that the Minister should delegate as much as he can to them—at least, as much as he can get away with. I am grateful for having such an able Parliamentary Secretary to pilot the Bill through in Committee.
When the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) spoke about the number of concessions which were made in Committee I felt rather uneasy, particularly when he referred to the number of occasions on which we lave given way to the Opposition and have accepted so many of their Amendments. Since we have taken that attitude I hope that I may ask them to be charitable on this occasion and not to press their Amendment to a Division. As I have explained, to accept it would be to breach an important principle, a principle which I do not believe has been breached in previous legislation.
§ Mr. Mellish
If our Amendment is called for a Division we will certainly go into the Lobby, because we cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against it. He said that it was the intention of the Government to ensure that no sectional interests were represented on the Council. If he believes that, why does he not consider who will be represented on it? He has no need to worry about the port employers knocking on his door seeking representation. The are already well represented.
If the Council is to be a success it must have on not only Mr. Wright, but someone with real knowledge of dockworkers, their organisation, and so on, who will be able to go back to the workers and explain to them why certain decisions must be made. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong and, because of that, we intend to press our Amendment to a Division.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 30, at end insert:
and shall include at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had experience and shown capacity in an organisation of
§ workers connected with the dock industry".[Mr. Mellish.]
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 230.1369
|Division No. 35.]||AYES||[6.19 p.m.|
|Albu, Austen||Harper, Joseph||Parkin, B. T.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hayman, F. H.||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Healey, Denis||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Pentland, Norman|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Barnett, Guy||Hilton, A. V.||Prentice, R. E.|
|Beaney, Alan||Holt, Arthur||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Houghton, Douglas||Probert, Arthur|
|Benn, Anthony Wedgwood||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Hoy, James H.||Randall, Harry|
|Benson, Sir George||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rankin, John|
|Blackburn F.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Blyton, William||Hunter, A. E.||Rhodes, H.|
|Boardman, H.||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Bowles, Frank||Janner, Sir Barnett||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)|
|Boyden, James||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)|
|Bradley, Tom||Jeger, George||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Ross, William|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Silkin, John|
|Callaghan, James||Kelley, Richard||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Kenyon, Clifford||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Chapman, Donald||King, Dr. Horace||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Lawson, George||Small, William|
|Collick, Percy||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Snow, Julian|
|Cronin, John||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Crosland, Anthony||Lipton, Marcus||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lubbock, Eric||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Steele, Thomas|
|Darling, George||McBride, N.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Stonehouse, John|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McLeavy, Frank||Stones, William|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Dempsey, James||Manuel, Archie||Swingler, Stephen|
|Diamond, John||Mapp, Charles||Taverne, D.|
|Dodds, Norman||Marsh, Richard||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Mason, Roy||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W-)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mellish, R. J.||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mendelson, J. J||Thornton, Ernest|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Millan, Bruce||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Evans, Albert Fitch, Alan||Milne, Edward||Tomney, Frank Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mitchison, G. R-||Warbey, William|
|Foley, Maurice||Monslow, Walter||Whitlock, William|
|Forman, J. C.||Moody, A. S.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Willey, Frederick|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Moyle, Arthur||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Ginsburg, David||Mulley, Frederick||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Neal, Harold||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Gourlay, Harry||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Grey, Charles||O'Malley, B. K.||Woof, Robert|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Owen, Will||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Gunter, Ray||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hamilton, William (West File)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Hannan, William||Parker, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Dr. Broughton and Mr. McCann.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Braine, Bernard|
|Allason, James||Bidgood, John C.||Brewis, John|
|Anderson, D. C.||Biffen, John||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Arbuthnot, Sir John||Biggs-Davison, John||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Brown, Alan (Tottenham)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bishop, Sir Patrick||Browne, Percy (Torrington)|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Bossom, Hon. Clive||Bryan, Paul|
|Barber, Anthony||Bourne-Arton, A.||Bullard, Denys|
|Barlow, Sir John||Box, Donald||Bullus, Wing Commander Eric|
|Barter, John||Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Burden, F. A.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Holland, Philip||Pitman, Sir James|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hollingworth, John||Pitt, Dame Edith|
|Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Pounder, Rafton|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hopkins, Alan||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hornby, R. P.||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Chataway, Christopher||Howard, John (Southampton, Test||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Hughes-Young, Michael||Ramsden, James|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)|
|Cole, Norman||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Cooke, Robert||Jackson, John||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Cooper, A. E.||James, David||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Shaw, M.|
|Costain, A. P.||Jennings, J. C.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Coulson, Michael||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Critchley, Julian||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Speir, Rupert|
|Cunningham, Knox||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Stainton, Keith|
|Curran, Charles||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Dance, James||Kershaw, Anthony||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|d'Avigdor- Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kimball, Marcus||Stodart, J. A.|
|Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.||Kirk, Peter||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Kitson, Timothy||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Lambton, Viscount||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Duncan, Sir James||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Tapsell, Peter|
|Duthie, Sir William (Banff)||Lindsay, Sir Martin||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)|
|Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Litchfield, Capt. John||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Loveys, Walter H.||Teeling, Sir William|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Temple, John M.|
|Farr, John||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Finlay, Graeme||MacArthur, Ian||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||McLaren, Martin||Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Maddan, Martin||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Maginnis, John E.||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Maitland, Sir John||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Turner, Colin|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Goodhart, Philip||Marshall, Sir Douglas||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Goodhew, Victor||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Grant-Ferns, R.||Mawby, Ray||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Green, Alan||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Walder, David|
|Grosvenor, Lord Robert||Mills, Stratton||Walker, Peter|
|Gurden, Harold||Miscampbell, Norman||Wall, Patrick|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Montgomery, Fergus||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Webster, David|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Morgan, William||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Morrison, John||Whitelaw, William|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hastings, Stephen||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wise, A. R.|
|Hay, John||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hendry, Forbes||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hiley, Joseph||Partridge, E.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Peel, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Mr. Batsford and Mr. Pym.|