HC Deb 19 July 1967 vol 750 cc2149-61

A company shall not be in default in complying with its statutory obligations relating to the keeping of registers and to the form and availability for inspection thereof solely by reason of the fact that—

  1. (a) such registers are kept by mechanical, photographic, electrical, electronic or other similar means, provided that the company keeps available in legible written form the information, which by law it is obliged to enter in such register and to keep available for inspection, so far as it relates to persons who have been members or debenture holders of the company at any time during the previous twelve years; or
  2. (b) such registers contain no records or information relating to persons who have not been members or debenture holders of the company at any time during the previous thirty years.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the Clause is to simplify and modernise the keeping of company registers. Paragraph (a) deals with the modern methods of keeping a register. There is no doubt that the draftsmen of the 1948 Companies Act contemplated the register being kept as a book. Section 110 of the Act speaks of the company keeping a register. Section 111 speaks of the index to the register. Section 113 talks about making the register available to the public. If a register is kept in modern form on a computer or even on microfilm it is very difficult to imagine how one presents it for inspection by the public

Many large companies have installed computers or use computer time for maintaining their records and are in doubt about whether they can maintain their statutory registers on the same basis. Many other companies use microfilm. Again, as the law stands, they are in doubt whether that is legal for their registers. We must not let the law obstruct the streamlining of administration.

The second half of our proposal, which comes in the second half of paragraph (a), is that the basic documents should be retained for inspection. That is to say, if somebody wishes to see the facts on which the register is based, the transfers, letters of allotment and documents on which the register has been compiled should be retained so that when somebody asks to see the register, instead of being presented with a computer and told what button to press or a drawer full of microfilm, the documents on which the register was compiled can be pro-ducted. The company does not, however, want to keep those documents for an excessive time. It seems to us that 12 years is quite long enough to keep the documents available and that after that time the company should be permitted by law to destroy them.

There seems to be no need—this was recognised in the Jenkins Report—to keep a record of the membership of persons who have not been members of the company during the last 30 years. It is true that one has frequently to turn back for considerable periods on the register for purposes required by individuals in settlement of their affairs, but there seems to be no reason why a company should maintain for the public a service which will cost it a lot in space to keep records more than 30 years old.

There is no doubt that the modern methods of recording were not recognised when the Companies Act, 1948, was drafted. At that time, it was thought that the register should be kept in a book solemnly and laboriously written up. That is reflected in the wording of the Sections to which I have referred. A company is bound by law to keep a register in that form. That is nonsense at a time when so many labour, time and energy-saving devices are in existence and should be clearly authorised by law.

A rough calculation which I have made shows that in the cost of the space required under existing law to accommodate records and details of wages and other items in the laborious form in which they have to be kept, we are losing in production as much as £5 million a year when one tots up rent and wages in keeping records in the present out-of-date form.

The Government are supposed to have heralded the technological age. I hope that we shall have it from the Minister of State that he can accept the Clause and prove that this go-ahead Government are alive to productive effort.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)

I shall not discuss the merits of the new Clause. On its merits, there are no arguments against it. There are no arguments except in favour of a provision on such lines, if not exactly in the precise wording of the new Clause, going on the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity.

All that I can say to the House is that this is one of many proposals—unfortunately, too many proposals—equally good and equally constructive, that we cannot accommodate in the Bill in the time available to us.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has quoted the Jenkins Report. Paragraph 483, to which he referred, contains 12 or more proposals much on these lines. The hon. Member has picked out two and has put them into the new Clause. All of them should be considered, and we propose to consider them for the second Companies Bill which, I repeat, we undertake to produce and certainly to get on the Statute Book during the present Parliament.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

The Minister of State's reply is very unsatisfactory, because he underlines the hopeless state into which we have got with the Bill. It is not good enough for the Government to bring forward the Bill—this was raised on numerous occasions in Committee—and say repeatedly that they will insert a new Clause or Amendment of their own and that if anomalies result from it, when the second Bill is introduced they will correct such anomalies as have arisen from their new Clause or Amendment, whereas when my hon. Friends put forward Amendments or new Clauses the Government say that they do not have time to include them in the Bill, however constructive and worth while they may be, but will consider them when their second Companies Bill is introduced.

We fully appreciate that the Government wish to bring forward the Bill urgently to deal with problems which have arisen on motor insurance and certain items in the Moneylenders Act, but why do the Government still insist on bringing forward what they admit to be an incomplete and partially unsatisfactory Bill, because it cannot contain all the items for disclosure which the Government would like and which my hon. Friends would like? Why do they bring forward these companies provisions when it would have been so much more satisfactory if they could have been brought forward in the Government's second Bill? We could then have had one Statute of companies legislation which would have been of the quality of the 1948 Act.

The Minister of State admits that the new Clause is constructive. He admitted that the previous new Clause was constructive. What is the object of hastening forward these provisions in the companies section of the Bill on to the Statute Book if we cannot include constructive suggestions at this time? It is thoroughly unsatisfactory for the Government constantly to say that they accept faults and errors in their own new Clauses and Amendments but will give them a tryout and if they happen to be full of errors, many of which are first seen by hon. Members opposite or by my hon. Friends on this side, they will correct them when the second Bill comes along. That is not the way in which legislation should be dealt with and brought before the House.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

If we lie down under this sort of treatment, we will be allowing the Government to take up a novel attitude. For the second time, we have new Clauses which have abundant merit. Nobody denies it, least of all the Government spokesman. When the Minister of State, for whom I have considerable respect, comes out with the same sort of argument that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade used a few minutes ago—that these are admirable ideas but for some reason, which is certainly not apparent to me, they cannot be adopted at this stage—the House of Commons is in danger of being treated with contempt.

We are here to represent the country, for better or for worse, and amongst a lot of other things which are going forward we have opportunities of doing something for the better. I do not believe that the Minister of State is at variance with us about the merits of the new Clause.

We are seeing what is called the "n.i.h." factor creeping in—the "not invented here" factor, which I have seen in one or two other aspects of national endeavour, whereby the Government say that if they did not think of an idea, it cannot be any good. Here we have a Government apparently condemning things for no better reason than that they did not think of them themselves and put them into the Bill originally.

I condemn that unreservedly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to get himself out of the mess he is in.

Mr. Darling

If I may intervene to put right those hon. Members—I am not saying this in any derogatory way—who did not have the benefit of hearing the discussions in the Standing Committee, I would point out to them that what we have put into the Bill, in this part dealing with disclosure, where this proposal comes in the Bill if it comes in anywhere at all, is based on what are called the disclosure recommendations of the Jenkins Committee.

The disclosure provisions occupy about one-third of the Jenkins recommendations. There are about another 100 or so recommendations still to come in some kind of legislation. What the Opposition have done is to pick out one or two of this large number of propositions still to come and say that those they have selected should be put into the Bill.

To be perfectly fair about all this, we should pick out the whole lot. It is not a question of our not having thought about these things. We have thought about them, and are making preparations to see that in one way or another they come into the second Companies Bill, where we decide they should come into the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Gower.

Dr. Bennett

The right hon. Gentleman was intervening, I thought, in my remarks. Was he not?

Mr. Speaker

I thought the hon. Member had completed his speech.

Dr. Bennett

The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think so.

Mr. Speaker

If the right hon. Gentleman was intervening the hon. Member may continue.

Dr. Bennett

All I will say is that the arguments very deftly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman are ingenious ways of trying to prevent some harmless —indeed, beneficial—measures going through. Would not half a loaf be better than no bread, in the circumstances? Would it not be better in the circumstances to allow this proposal to go on the Statute Book? It may be years before we have the second Bill. After all, who knows what is going to happen to the present Government? There have been various disruptions and we see further disruptions immediately ahead. Today the Government have an opportunity to accept a Clause which would improve the Bill, and they should take this chance of improving it.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

The right hon. Gentleman seemed singularly uncomfortable when he gave his explanation, and nothing he said has in any way explained the Government's refusal to incorporate this new Clause in the Bill. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). We on this side of the House respect the right hon. Gentleman, and we are sorry he had to give such an entirely inadequate answer a few moments ago. I expected him to say that, because this is one of the things which had been apportioned by the Government to the second Bill, it was inconceivable it should not be included in this, but he did not give a single valid argument in favour of the incorporation of this Clause into this Bill: not a single one.

Even at this stage I wonder, cannot this be reconsidered? Is it not absurd that something which is agreed on both sides of the House to be highly beneficial cannot be incorporated in the present Measure? I really cannot understand why the Government cannot even at this stage alter their minds.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

The Minister said in effect that the Bill is really only half a Companies Bill. One has only to review the Amendments put down on Report to see that it is a half-baked Bill.

This new Clause affects the efficiency and the modernisation of offices. It is a matter of real value. If the Government intend in a later Bill to introduce such a provision, surely even at this stage they could do it now and accept this new Clause. There would be an avantage in doing so. Were the new Clause put into the Bill, when it came to be operated, some small snags might appear. So the Government would have a trial run, and in their second Bill—if they are the Government long enough to produce that second Bill—they would have the opportunity to correct those snags.

But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) said, just to turn this down out of hand is just not good enough, and they do that because they did not think of it themselves. No harm could possibly be done by introducing this new Clause here. After all, we want to get modern equipment into offices, and that is one way of saving S.E.T. which the Government say they do not want people to have to have to pay. Accepting this new Clause would be an encouragement to getting new, modern equipment.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

I really do not understand why the Government have refused to meet the Opposition's request on this new Clause. It is obviously a very sensible one, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it is a sensible one. Why suddenly on Report stage should the Government say that in no circumstances will they accept a new Clause, the proposals in which, they admit, would improve the Bill, just because at some time in the future they may have another Bill? They are apparently defeating the objects of their Bill.

Of course, one would like to know when the next Companies Bill will come out, because a great deal depends upon this. We are told that there will be another one, but not what sort of frame it is intended to have. If they say they will consider these things when the next Companies Bill comes, the second course, obviously they should know what its shape will be, and if we could be told the intended shape of the next Bill—

Mr. Speaker


Mr. Burden

—we should be in a better position—

Mr. Speaker

No. Not on this new Clause.

Mr. Burden

I am coming to the point, Mr. Speaker—we should be in a better position to judge why the Government so insist upon refusing to accept this new Clause.

I join my hon. Friends in asking that the Minister, even at this stage, reconsider the matter. He has already been twice at that Dispatch Box and said, "No". If on the next occasion he can say "Yes", that will be very helpful. In the past we have had so many promises from the Government that they will do certain things in the future, and it seems to be an extraordinary habit of this Government that they make a promise today which is forgotten very shortly afterwards —or events overcome them and they cannot carry out their promises.

The Minister now has an opportunity to put this right. I hope that he will avail himself of it.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I am sorry to say that my hon. Friends must really be a little more realistic. How can they expect a Government who were returned to power on a policy, they said, designed for the modernisation of our technical processes and have then done exactly the opposite ever since they were returned to power to accept a new Clause designed to modernise? This is really asking too much. It would really mean that the Government would have carried out one of their promises.

Dr. Bennett


Sir D. Glover

That would be quite startling, and it would mean that the Government were at last doing something to modernise our society.

This is exactly what this new Clause would do. It is asking the Government to show that they accept that we do not nowadays write with quill pens and do not sand the register after signing our names. Yet the whole thinking of the party opposite is exactly in tune with sanding the paper, waiting for the ink to dray, they move so slowly and cautiously towards an advancement in our society. Here they have an opportunity to show they realise that nowadays there are offices where microfilm is used, where there are great technological advances. Of course, that is against all the thinking which is the basis of Socialism and on which Socialism ever came to power. Theirs is a party which is full of Luddites. How can we expect them to accept a Clause like this? It is far too much to expect.

There is yet another point which the right hon. Gentleman had better take into account if the Government do not accept this new Clause. The reason is that the Government have run out of steam. If they accept the new Clause, they will have nothing in their legislative programme for next Session. They will have to keep back something, because they have no new ideas. Their so-called programme is completed, and the country is suffering from the stresses and strains resulting from all the ill thought out—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman's eloquence is carrying him out of the bounds of order. He must come back.

Sir D. Glover

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose getting any further out of order. I am sure that the House would like the Government to accept the new Clause, thinks that they ought to accept it, but knows that they will do no such thing. I hope that my hon. Friend will divide the House.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)

The Minister of State's first words were that there was no possible reason why the Clause should not be accepted for inclusion in the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. However, what sort of legislative policy is it when we have a Companies Bill of which the short title makes it clear that the new Clause is precisely the sort of thing which should be in it but when the Government say that this is not the earliest opportunity to put it in the Statute Book?

We know that the law is being honoured in the breach, if at all. I have no doubt that many companies are keeping their registers in this way, and it cannot be in the interests of the country that the law should be honoured in its breach nor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out, can it make sense even for this Government to reject a Clause which is designed at least to conform to the Labour Party's slogan about the white heat of the technological revolution, however little members of that party themselves conform to any concept that it raises in one's mind.

In the previous Amendment, the President of the Board of Trade complained that there had not been time to consult. Heaven knows what consultation was necessary to see whether it was desirable to mark some shares with the true meaning of what they implied.

In our earlier discussions last week, at least two new Clauses were introduced by the Government which they admitted they had only thought of in the last two or three days. They made no case for their urgency or for their consistency with any principle which may run through the Bill. In the present case, we are told that in no circumstances can the Clause be accepted because it would be unfair to select one or two matters for which a specially good case is made out when someone else has forgotten to bring forward the others and make an equally good case. What nonsense!

We are expected to accept Amendments put down by the Government which relate not to the Companies Bill but to the Exchange Control Act and which merely add other provisions to the Bill which have nothing to do with company law. I suggest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is an inauspicious way to begin the proceedings on the second day of the Report stage. On the first day, at the Government's suggestion, we rose at about 11 o'clock to assist the Leader of the House, if that is not a misnomer in itself, to abuse the

procedure of the House in relation to Private Members' time. Now we are expected to get through the greater part of the Report stage in a single sitting. We start on the basis that even the most sensible Amendments, which are acceptable on their merits and on their drafting, nevertheless are rejected by the Government, whereas at about 4 o'clock in the morning, we shall be discussing new Clauses which they have put down in the last few days. I hope that we shall divide, and I hope that we shall continue to divide throughout the day.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 206.

Division No. 475.] AYES [4.35 p.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Astor, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Baker, W. H. K. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Balniel, Lord Hawkins, Paul Peel, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pounder, Rafton
Bell, Ronald Hill, J. E. B. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Holland, Philip Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bessell, Peter Hooson, Emlyn Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Biffen, John Hunt, John Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridsdale, Julian
Brinton, Sir Tatton Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Robson Brown, Sir William
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bruce-Cardyne, J. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Russell, Sir Ronald
Bryan, Paul Kirk, Peter Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Kitson, Timothy Sinclair, Sir George
Bullus, Sir Eric Knight, Mrs. Jill Stainton, Keith
Burden, F. A. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Campbell, Gordon Langford-Holt, Sir John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Summers, Sir Spencer
Cooke, Robert Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Tapsell, Peter
Cordle, John Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Corfield, F. V. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Costain, A. P. Loveys, W. H. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Lubbock, Eric Temple, John M.
Currie, G. B H. McAdden, Sir Stephen Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dalkeith, Earl of Mac Arthur, Ian Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Dance, James Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) McMaster, Stanley
Maginnis, John E. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Marten, Neil Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maude, Angus Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Emery, Peter Mawby, Ray Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Errington, Sir Eric Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ward, Dame Irene
Eyre, Reginald Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Weatherill, Bernard
Fortescue, Tim Mills, Peter (Torrington) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Foster, Sir John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Montgomery, Fergus Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E) More, Jasper Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Glover, Sir Douglas Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Wright, Esmond
Grant-Ferris, R. Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wylie, N. R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Neave, Airey Younger, Hn. George
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Nichollas, Sir Harmar TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gurden, Harold Nott, John Mr. Anthony Royle and
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Onslow, Craniey Mr. Anthony Grant.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Anderson, Donald Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Alldritt, Walter Archer, Peter Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Alien, Scholefield Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Barnett, Joel
Baxter, William Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orme, Stanley
Beaney, Alan Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bance, Cyril Haseldine, Norman Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hazell, Bert Padley, Walter
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Heffer, Eric S. Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Paget, R. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hooley, Frank Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Boardman, H. Howie, W. Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Booth, Albert Hoy, James Pavitt, Laurence
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Huckfield, L. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bowden, Rt. Hn, Herbert Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Boyden, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pentland, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hughes, Roy (Newport) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Bradley, Tom Hunter, Adam Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Brooks, Edwin Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Probert, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rankin, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rees, Merlyn
Cant, R. B. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carmichael, Neil Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Kelley, Richard Robertson, John (Paisley)
Coleman, Donald Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Concannon, J. D. Lawson, George Rose, Paul
Conlan, Bernard Lestor, Miss Joan Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sheldon, Robert
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lipton, Marcus Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Lomas, Kenneth Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Loughlin, Charles Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Luard, Evan Slater, Joseph
Dell, Edmund Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Small, William
Dempsey, James McBride, Neil Snow, Julian
Dickens, James McCann, John Spriggs, Leslie
Doig, Peter MacColl, James Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Driberg, Tom McGuire, Michael Stonehouse, John
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Mackie, John Swingler, Stephen
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Mackintosh, John P. Taverne, Dick
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Thornton, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, J. Kevin Tinn, James
Ellis, John MacPherson, Malcolm Tomney, Frank
English, Michael Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Tuck, Raphael
Ennals, David Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Urwin, T. W.
Ensor, David Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Manuel, Archie Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mapp, Charles Wallace, George
Finch, Harold Marquand, David Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mason, Roy White, Mrs. Eirene
Foley, Maurice Maxwell, Robert Whitlock, William
Ford, Ben Millan, Bruce Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Forrester, John Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gardner, Tony Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winterbottom, R. E.
Garrett, W. E. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Ginsburg, David Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Roland Yates, Victor
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Murray, Albert
Gregory, Arnold Newens, Stan TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grey, Charles (Durham) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Griffiths, Wilt (Exchange) Norwood, Christopher Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Ogden, Eric Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Orbach, Maurice