§ In the exercise of their functions under this Act with regard to the provision for the public of meals, refreshments and accommodation it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.—[Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause Amendments No. 18, in Clause 6, page 8, line 12 at end insert:Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;No. 27, in Clause 8, page 11, line 41, at end insert:Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;1149 and No. 42, in Clause 18, page 20, line 21, at end insert:Provided that the Commissioners shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.
§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify what he said in Committee, when there were two matters on which he and my hon. Friends had a difference of opinion. The first was that thought that the local authority should provide meals, refreshments and accommodation, whereas some of us on this side disagreed. The second was that he thought that, in many places, no-one would be available to provide these services, whereas some of us thought that there are few parts of the country where people are not already providing at least some of these services and could not provide additional ones better than a local authority.
The hon. Gentleman said in Committee:Therefore, it seems to us to be reasonable that the local authority should have the right to provide the facilities that seem appropriate for that sort of concept … Obviously, a responsible local authority will make its arrangements … Of course, in a number of cases, these will no doubt be made through concessionaires. This is not the sort of prows on which is aimed at private enterprise."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 297.]So he said at first that the local authority would be the right body, and then that it would sometimes be done through concessionaires. The new Clause would ensure that concessionaires had the opportunity and would remove the doubts of those already providing such services about whether they could provide any increased services required. There is always the fear that services provided by local authorities would have to be financed by the ratepayers.
In Committee, I asked the hon. Gentleman to reconsider Section 3 of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, which seemed a respectable precedent from a previous Social administration, and which provided that, if an organisation did not operate at a profit after a reason- 1150 able period, it had to close down. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that he would be glad to look at anything. He has had the chance to look at this and at anything else now, and I hope that he will now think that the new Clause will clarify what he said in Committee and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
§ Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)
I hope that the Forestry Commission will not be asked to provide restaurants on any scale. Those of us who have regularly visited conservancies in all-party groups know of the efforts of the Commission to attract the public to forest areas where no harm would be done to forestry. But, however good its work, we have gained the impression that it has its hands full with other things, since its first job is to grow trees and its second, increasingly, to market them. In one or two areas, such as the Keilder Forest on the Upper Tyne, the Commission is providing excellent facilities for the public. It would be wrong to give it the job of providing food if it did not wish to do so; nor would it be right to ask the Commission to accept on its forestry votes any expenditure or losses which might be caused. For these reasons, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the new Clause.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Pardoe
One might refer here to Bagehot, who was quoted favourably by the Prime Minister recently, in saying that, where we cannot have competition in the field, we should have competition for the field. This is a principle which should be followed in this situation as in all others. Unlimited competition is not possible in providing these facilities—there are obvious limits—but there are grave dangers, as shown by the recent and recurring troubles of the Egg Marketing Board over the second eggs scheme, in powers for a commission, marketing board or other authority to provide services like this. If a system of tendering is not provided for, the whole matter can go adrift. It is absolutely essential not only to write in a system of tendering, as has been done here, but to see that it is universal.
Private enterprise always provides a better service, particularly in catering, 1151 than a State-run organisation. For example, British Rail was pleased to hand over to private enterprise its cafeteria at Tavistock, a small station in the West Country—which it could not possibly keep open on the terms on which it had been running it. For the last two or three years a man and his wife have been running what was a non-paying cafeteria to the satisfaction of all concerned, including British Rail, and they have been operating it not only successfully but profitably. I hope that the Minister will accept that rather than for us to allow the Commission to run these establishments, they should be given out to tender to private enterprise.
§ Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)
I support this reasonable new Clause. Hon. Members know how difficult it is, even in the heart of Westminster, to make a refreshment department work. Those who travel overseas also appreciate that the facilities which are provided by private enterprise at beauty spots and elsewhere are always more efficient than State-run organisations. We should make it obligatory for local authorities to put this out to tender so that efficient, competitive and reliable services are offered to the public.
§ Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)
I, too, support the Clause and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said, I think that he may have been pushing at an open door. If so, it means that the Parliamentary Secretary realises the tremendous value of the work done by small groups of people in country areas in providing refreshment facilities for the public. Hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of national parks will appreciate the important work done by men and their wives in providing services required by the public. Their activities are greatly preferable to those of the large State organisation, which must face staffing problems and the need to find employment for staff not required in the winter. This makes the service extremely expensive. On the other hand, a small private firm or a man and his wife can provide these facilities without difficulty.
§ Mr. Peter Mills
My reason for supporting the Clause is that it is right in principle, and anything else would be 1152 utterly wrong. I fundamentally disagree with the Government on this issue because I do not like the idea of development boards and commissions interfering with private enterprise. When Government bodies enter this sort of business they usually make a mess of it. Nobody is attracted by the food offered by British Rail. Even the tea is cold. Private enterprise does this job well, and I will not, in explaining why, go into the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) of the Commission having to find employment for its unwanted staff in the winter.
In many country areas farmers' wives provide refreshment facilities and, by doing so, help to meet their expenses. In some areas this work is part of the "perks" and it should not be taken away from the wives of farmers or farm workers who, from their small cottages, provide cups of tea and perhaps bed and breakfast at 22s. a night. This is a little hit of jam on the small amount of bread that they have, and it would be wrong for the State to interfere with it.
§ Mr. Anderson
I cannot understand this farrago of prejudice from hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly from the normally sensible hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who referred to State concerns inevitably making a botch of things and British Rail always serving cold tea.
Although I go part of the way with the new Clause, I disagree with it in principle. This matter should be left flexible and, where the provision of these facilities can be put out to tender, that will be done. I have no objection in principle to the Commission entering into this type of business, as long as it does so on a fair basis and competes on fair terms with private enterprise. I shall support this principle in the Transport Bill, just as I shall in this Measure.
§ Mr. Skeffington
This reminds me of several discussions we had in Committee when hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed doctrinal obsessions to take over. Even the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) dragged in the suggestion that if a local authority became the main agent in providing these services, the cost would fall on the ratepayers. That may happen in his constituency, but I know that it does not happen in the 1153 constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), where the local authority makes good profits out of the provision of extremely good services of this kind. As far as I know, the Hotels Executive has never made a loss.
However. I do not wish to base my case on this philosophical or doctrinal attitude, but to ask the House to face up to the situation in which increasing demands are being made on the facilities being provided in the countryside. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not given sufficient thought to the enormous number of people who wish to take advantage of these facilities. Our 581 people per square mile are becoming more mobile. The Bill aims in part at opening up areas to the public by the creation of parks, picnic sites, camps and so on.
To meet this demand, local authorities will wish to provide facilities. If facilities are available, they will not wish to do that. Nor will the Commission, which is limited to providing these facilities only in a few experimental projects—and even then it may not wish to do that. The matter is completely at the Commission's discretion. Local authorities will use existing facilities if they are adequate. Many municipal authorities take the view that where facilities should be provided in town parks, it is essential, for the families who wish to spend their time in the parks, to provide these facilities.
Whether the provision of these facilities should be left to private or local enterprise is a matter for the local authorities concerned. We wish to adopt the principle that in this great new obligation which local authorities will have, they should act responsibly, remembering that if these authorities were not capable of operating responsibly, Administrations of both parties would not have given them greater powers over the years.
We must consider this matter in a practical way and face the problems arising from the vast number of people who are going into the country. There are now nine million motorcars on our roads. There will be 20 million in 10 years' time. These facilities must be provided.
It is not true that, as some hon. Members seemed to suggest, the powers we are giving to local authorities and the Forestry Commission in the relatively small number of cases where this situation might arise 1154 would prevent anyone else offering a service. This provision does not stop anyone doing so, but it is to see that in particular areas there will be adequate facilities. In the sort of place mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), such as Keilder, it is unlikely that any private caterer would be interested in providing these facilities. We are giving local authorities or the Forestry Commission the opportunity to provide them where there is a need for them and where they cannot be conveniently provided adequately by private enterprise.
I was asked what would happen in the winter. The Commission would close its accommodation in the winter just as the private operator would close accommodation. Perhaps hon. Members forget that already about 5 million people visit the forests annually. It is right that the Commission, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, should provide facilities which cannot be conveniently provided by others. It is wrong to take this grandmotherly attitude towards the Commission and the local authorities.
I am sure the new Clause has been put forward only in order to elicit a response from the Government. It would not be adequate. I merely says that the bodies named in relation to various activitiesshall not … provide accommodation, meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.Satisfactory to whom? Does it mean more economically? It is quite hopeless, even if it were taken as a test of practicality. Our belief is that the Commission and local authorities, in the small number of cases in which they may be concerned, should have the right to do these things, if they cannot be provided conveniently by others.
§ Mr. John Smith
What the Parliamentary Secretary has said arouses all the fears that many of us have about this Bill. His approach was entirely urban. This is not a question of national or municipal enterprise versus private enterprise but a question of our approach to the countryside.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hotels Executive and what is done in town parks, but the type of person who wishes to go miles in search 1155 of solitude—and whom I wish to encourage to do so—does not want to find a British Restaurant on his arrival there. He wishes to find, incompetent though it may be, and in municipal terms most incompetent, a farmhouse tea. I therefore warmly support the new Clause and I hope that we can expunge this urban approach from the Bill.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Jopling
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but, after listening to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel constrained to do so. The hon. Member for Monmouth did not try to do what I give credit to the Parliamentary Secretary for doing—to argue his case. He more or less said, "I do not like this Amendment. I am all for State trading; I approve of it in the Transport Bill and here". We would have been grateful if he had given a few reasons. He might have said, "I like this because Karl Marx wrote it and I will go into the Lobby and vote against this new Clause". I am sorry that he did not explain his position more fully.
My reaction to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). This would be a useful Clause dealing with remote rural areas where the provision of accommodation would be only marginally profitable. Whoever makes provision for catering and accommodation there should make the best possible use of resources, not only in investment but in his work. The best use of resources could be ensured by the private enterprise man in a small way. He could provide a far more efficient service in these areas.
From the point of view of rural depopulation, this new Clause is important. These catering enterprises are only marginally profitable. It may be that the Commission or the local authorities would find them too expensive and that the cost would be too great. Then, if they decided not to provide them, there would be no such provision. Many hon. Members on either side of the House have tried to create a situation in which more people will be encouraged to live in remote areas. By writing into the Bill a firm provision that private enterprise must 1156 have first priority in this activity, we would be encouraging more people to live in those areas in which we are so concerned about rural depopulation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) will press the new Clause to a Division. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it in the Lobby.
§ Mr. Channon
This debate has shown how totally doctrinaire the Parliamentary Secretary is. In this new Clause we attempted to put forward a compromise solution. So undoctrinaire were we in Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary asked for time to look at this proposal again. If he thought that we were putting forward a totally invalid suggestion, why did he say in Committee:The Government have some sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment ",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 295.]We sought to strike a balance between the interests of private enterprise and the interests of the State. I shall show the number of occasions in which, where it is proposed that various authorities can provide meals, refreshment and accommodation, a fantastic side-swipe can be taken against the proposal. A plethora of hotels and restaurants could be set up as a result of this Bill. What could be more disastrous for the countryside?
If it is thought that I am exaggerating, I call attention to Clause 3, by which the Commission, for experimental purposes, can provide meals, refreshment or accommodation because it has power toset up and carry on directly or through an agent any business or undertaking.I should be astonished if this were not wide enough. They would certainly have the power to do it under that Clause.
Under Clause 6 the local authorities have the power to set up hotels in the country parks and provide meals or accommodation. In Clause 7 the local authorities have the power to do it on common land, and as a result, my hon. Friends voted against this provision in the Standing Committee. Curiously enough, though, in Clause 7 the Government have put forward a safeguard which, had it been written into the rest of the Bill, would have meant that my hon. Friends would not be pressing this new 1157 Clause. Clause 7 in regard to common land thata local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor in the neighbourhood of the common land are inadequate or unsatisfactory.…".If the Government were prepared to write that into the remaining parts of the Bill, they would have a case. It is quite unsatisfactory for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to this House and say that in those remote areas the facilities are going to be so unsatisfactory and inconvenient that it is essential that this is in the Bill, yet not be prepared to write in the safeguard we would be willing to accept, and indeed suggested in the Standing Committee debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) will be interested in the powers of the Forestry Commission under Clause 18. I hope we shall have an opportunity to discuss this in detail later, because the Forestry Commission is given powers to provide accommodation for visitors, camping sites and caravan sites, shops, public conveniences, information centres and a whole host of things which could very easily, on occasion, be provided equally satisfactorily by private enterprise.
During the Committee stage we suggested that the Government should either bring in the safeguards which they have in their own Clause 7 or adopt the test which my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) pointed out that they brought in under the previous Labour Government in the Civic Restaurants Act of 1947, that if such activities did not show a profit for three years certain penalties should follow. Either course would seem to me to be reasonable.
This Clause does not stop local authorities providing the facilities when it is impossible for them to be provided in other ways, which would avoid a waste of public money. It simply says:
it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.
§ That seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory and reasonable and to represent a compromise which could easily have been accepted by the Government. We suggest public invitation of tenders, that other people should be invited to say if they wish to provide the facilities; and if they can do so on satisfactory terms we think they should have the chance.
§ One of the major defects of the Bill as drafted is that time and again, in Clause after Clause, more powers are written in for local authorities, the Forestry Commission or the Countryside Commission to engage in activities which are not essential to their job under the Bill, which will divert their attention from providing the things we want to see them provide under the Bill—to providing meals, refreshments or accommodation, and will do so at the expense of private enterprise and in a way which will ensure that the facilities lose money and fail to give satisfaction to those who will be the customers.
§ I very much hope that my hon. Friends will agree to divide the House on this subject, to show how deeply we feel about this Clause.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 202.1161
|Division No. 115.]
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
|Costain, A. P.
|Brinton, Sir Tatton
|Cunningham, Sir Knox
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)
|Digby, Simon Wingfield
|Bullus, Sir Eric
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
|Drayson, G. B.
|Black, Sir Cyril
|Channon, H. P. G.
|Eden, Sir John
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
|Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
|Errington, Sir Eric
|Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
|Maginnis, John E.
|Smith, John (London & W'minster)
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
|Mills, peter (Torrington)
|Steel, David (Roxburgh)
|Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
|Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
|Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
|Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
|Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
|Hill, J. E. B.
|Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
|Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
|van Straubenzee, W. R.
|Page, Graham (Crosby)
|Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)
|Vickers, Dame Joan
|Iremonger, T. L.
|Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
|Ward, Dame Irene
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
|Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
|Pink, R. Bonner
|Williams, Donald (Dudley)
|Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
|Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
|Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
|Prior, J. M. L.
|Knight, Mrs. Jill
|Quennell, Miss J. M.
|Wylie, N. R.
|Langford-Holt, Sir John
|Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
|Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
|Mr. Timothy Kitson and
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
|Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
|Loveys, W. H.
|Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
|Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
|Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
|Lee, John (Reading)
|Bishop, E. S.
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
|Galpern, Sir Myer
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy
|Garrett, W. E.
|Macdonald, A. H.
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
|Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
|Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
|Grey, Charles (Durham)
|Cant, R. B.
|Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
|McNamara, J. Kevin
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
|Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
|Matron, Simon (Bootle)
|Concannon, J. D.
|Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice
|Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
|Mendelson, J. J.
|Hilton, W. S.
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
|Miller, Dr. M. S.
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doug as
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
|Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
|Davies, Harold (Leek)
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
|Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
|Noel-Baker, Bt.Hn.philip (Derby, S.)
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)
|Dunn, James A.
|Janner, Sir Barnett
|Oram, Albert E.
|Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William
|Walden, Brian (All Saints)
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
|Rowlands, E, (Cardiff, N.)
|Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
|Owen, Will (Morpeth)
|Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
|Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
|Watkins, David (Consett)
|Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
|Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
|Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
|White, Mrs. Eirene
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
|Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
|Wilkins, W. A.
|Parker, John (Dagenham)
|Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
|Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
|Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
|Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
|Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
|Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
|Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
|Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
|Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
|Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
|Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
|Price, William (Rugby)
|Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
|Symonds, J. B.
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
|Robertson, John (Paisley)
|Urwin, T. W.
|Mr. Neil McBride.
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
|Varley, Eric C.