§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael)I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 18, leave out ' (Exchequer loans)' and insert:
'(loans out of National Loans Fund)'.This is a technical Amendment consequent on the passing of the National Loans Act earlier this Session. It means that loans under Section 20 of the Transport Act, 1962, will come from the National Loans Fund. The Amendment simply corrects the references in the Bill to that provision.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorI beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 25, at end insert:
'but which will reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern'.1325 We have endeavoured to get through discussion of previous Amendments as quickly as possible because now we come to some Amendments which are extremely important and which we regard as crucial. Amendment No. 10 is one of these, because it deals with the National Freight Corporation and the basis on which it will be competing with other organisations. The Corporation will have wide and sweeping powers. It will have the power by competitive ability to put private road hauliers out of business. When considering the basis of the competition from the National Freight Corporation we have to remember that it will have power to put long-standing businesses, employing large numbers of people entirely out of business.This point was fully ventilated in Committee. We have every reason, because of that discussion, to raise the matter again. I shall read some of the accounts we were given of the basis of valuation of the commencing capital debt. If the Minister will look at the Report of the Fourth Sitting of the Committee he will see that the Minister of State said:
The assets transferred to the National Freight Corporation from the railways will be taken into account at their full book value.I ask the Minister to look further down the page. Then he will see that, after an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), the Minister of State referred to,at the real value".Then, if the Minister casts his eye to column 198, he will see a reference to what is to be the commencing capital debt of the new Corporation which the Minister of State said would,be transferred at their proper value.We tried to clear this matter up. After an intervention in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) asked if it was in factfull book value",the Minister of State said:Net book value".The position was not made crystal clear and later my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked:Will he give an assurance that the Government's intention is to produce a balance sheet for the National Freight Corporation which 1326 represents the true, up-to-date assets of that Corporation".We received a reply which was not in any sense ambiguous. The Minister of State said:I readily give that assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 31st January, 1968; cc. 197, 198, 204, 211.]We have moved from "full book value" to "real value" to "proper valuation" and then to "net book value" and when we asked for the assurance that it was the true up-to-date assets of the Corporation the Minister of State was able to say he readily gave that assurance. If the Minister thinks that we are wrong to raise this matter now, if he looks at those five separate explanations he will understand the reason for our concern.At a much later stage, after an Amendment had been discussed and disposed of, the then Minister of Transport, who is now at a quite different Ministry exhorting business firms to keep prices down despite the extra burdens she has placed on them, clarified the situation by saying that it was very much different. We had a specific assurance on the basis of which we curtailed the debate and then that assurance was removed. The position is still far from clear.
We had a helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). He tried to help us by saying that he was chairman of the finance committee of a local authority, and we greatly appreciated his intervention. He said that of course the basis would be that of the 1962 Act, which was passed by a previous Government. He pointed out that in Section 39(6) and (8) all would be well because we followed the 1962 Act. If the Minister looks at Section 39(6) he will see that there is not an enormous safeguard. It says:
Subject to the next following section, the rate of interest payable on the commencing capital debt of each of the said bodies …One will be the new National Freight Corporation—the time when the principal is to be paid off and the other terms of the debt shall be such as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time direct.It should be borne in mind that the Act of 1962 is no safeguard because the grant, when it should be paid and the terms in interest and other terms have to be settled by the Minister.1327 7.45 p.m.
We appeal to the Minister to see that there should be a fair assessment of the real value of the assets of the Corporation and on that basis the Corporation should compete with private industry. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), have said that we are considering fair competition. If a new organisation were set up to compete, or if there were a takeover bid, that is the establishment of a new competitive undertaking. Would it be on the basis of book value or net book value? Of course not. It would be on the basis of the assets of that undertaking as a going concern.
If it is suggested that the Act of 1962 is in any way a safeguard for this position, I ask the Minister to consider what has been done in respect of British Railways under the same Act. A capital debt has been whittled down from £1,562 million, of which £705 million constituted a suspended debt, to £300 million. It could be argued that the new reduction in capital totals only £557 million, but that disregards the fact that in 1962 it was envisaged that at some stage the Minister might suggest that the whole or part of the debt should carry interest and be repayable.
If the provisions of the Act are taken into account it will be seen that the railways' capital debt has been reduced by £1,964 million to the proposed new amount of £300 million. Under the 1962 Act, by two strokes of the pen, almost £2,000 million—enough capital to replace more than half the British Merchant Navy—has been written off.
I hope that the Minister will not say that one safeguard is that the transaction comes under the Act of 1962. It allowed a great deal of flexibility which my hon. Friends and I were glad to leave in the hands of a Conservative Government, but which obviously could be abused and misused. We are looking for protection by this Amendment. We have not said that competition should be on an unfair basis, but that the commencing capital debt should reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern. It may be argued that this has not been put forward in relation to other nationalised industries, but it is absolutely vital in relation to this be- 1328 cause this will be in the unique position of putting other organisations out of business by under-cutting them.
The private road haulier wishing to travel more than 100 miles will have to apply for a licence. The National Freight Corporation could ensure that he did not get a licence although he could prove that he could offer a speedier service. The Minister might say that, even if the Amendment were accepted, it would not make much difference to the interest which must be paid to the Government, because this is money which is specifically borrowed. This argument was advanced by the previous Minister. She said, "Even if we accept this and write off or write down the assets"—whichever is called for—"it will not make any real difference to the interest payments".
We suggest that the Amendment should be accepted, with the full consequences that flow from that. If the real value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern is £100 million, £200 million, £1,000 million, or whatever it may be, the logical consequences of that should be accepted and interest should be paid thereon. This is vital, if any semblance of fair competition with the private sector is to be preserved.
We accept that the Minister is flexible. He honestly wants to ensure that there is fair competition with private industry. If he accepts this, surely he will take this positive step and ensure that there will be fair competition. How can there be fair competition if assets of considerable size are written down to a level which might be absurd and inappropriate? We want the assurance which was given in Committee to be carried out to ensure that there will be fair competition.
The Minister has been very active in trying to assure the world that the powers in the Bill will be used sensibly, reasonably and flexibly. Despite that, many business men and many employees in businesses fear that they will be driven out of business by unfair competition. If the Amendment is not accepted, there is every danger that these people will be driven out by competition which will be unfair and which will have no proper actuarial basis.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he has any doubts, I hope that he will 1329 bear in mind that when the Amendment was discussed in Committee—it may have been a misunderstanding; it may not have been terribly clear—in response to a question on the same point as I am putting forward now we received the assurance that it would be done. In all these circumstances, to remove the real fears which the private sector of road haulage and the public have, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MarshThis is an interesting Amendment, because it starts from a false analogy between a private sector takeover, which was what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) took as an example, and this exercise. The hon. Gentleman specifically suggested that if there was a takeover bid the position would be very different. This is exactly the point. This is not a commercial transaction. We are not buying assets or selling assets. We are merely reallocating within the public sector assets which are already the property of the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman fairly made the point that many people were very worried about the effects of the Bill. He is right. Many people are worried—because of a deliberate, sustained attempt by hon. Gentlemen to exaggerate the problems on every possible occasion. This is an example of that.
I am in favour of a commercial body such as this operating in terms of fair competition. I see no reason why nationalised industries should be feather-bedded unless it is done as a totally separate exercise. I repeat that I am in favour of a commercial body such as this operating in competition with the private sector. There is no reason, that argument having been advanced, why hon. Members opposite should expect shackles to be placed upon the public sector which would not be the case in the private sector in these circumstances. To take a rather better and more accurate analogy than the hon. Gentleman took, if a large commercial concern set up a new division and reallocated its existing assets the position would be dealt with in this way.
All that we are concerned with in this exercise is the reapportionment of existing property, existing rights and existing liabilities. We are not concerned with 1330 the creation of new assets or new liabilities; nor are we concerned with the sale of assets at any negotiated price. There is no question of the Bill creating a situation under which the reapportionment of the liabilities in the way proposed would lead to unfair competition with the private sector.
The effect of the provisions of the Bill would be for the assets of the nationalised sector which are already in competition with the assets in the private sector to go over at their current valuation. Why should they not? A new price is not being negotiated. The Bill will not provide for either the writing down or the writing up of the assets that the Corporation will inherit. This is one of those issues on which what hon. Gentlemen are desperately anxious to do is, not to ensure that the competition is fair, but to apply to the public sector a method of valuation and a commencing capital debt which would not be applicable in a similar set of circumstances in private industry. In these circumstances, it would be totally unrealistic to expect the Government to accept the Amendment.
The interesting thing that we find throughout the whole of this debate so far, after all the discussions about shortage of time, is that hon. Gentlemen raise again a case which they argued exhaustively in Committee and on which they received answers from Ministers in Committee. Yet they return to it again today, as they have returned to a number of issues, in my view for no other reason than that it all adds to the picture they seek to paint of the Government wickedly preventing them from discussing issues which they want to discuss. They discussed this issue in Committee. They may not have agreed with the reply which they received from the Government, but they were under no illusions as to what that reply was. They now raise this issue on the Floor of the House again.
The simple proposition is that, if publicly-owned assets are to be used in a different combination under a different heading than before, there is no reason at all why hon. Members opposite should seek the sort of measures which they propose in the Amendment.
§ Mr. StaintonI found the Minister's reply very disappointing, and I hope that all my hon. Friends take my view. It 1331 was disappointing on two separate and distinct counts. First, an assurance was given in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) posed this question: "Will he"—that is. the Minister of State
give an assurance that the Government's intention is to produce a balance sheet for the National Freight Corporation which represents the true, up-to-date assets of that Corporation?The Minister of State replied:I readily give that assurance.Whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said this:In the circumstances, in the light of the assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 31st January, 1968, c. 211.]Hence our optimism in bringing this Amendment forward and our extreme disappointment that the Minister has seen fit to turn his back on the Minister of State and the assurance which was given in Committee. One does not want to get too intertwined between Ministers and their Ministerial colleagues.Even more disappointing from the standpoint of the House as a whole is the fact that the Minister has completely failed to appreciate the argument which derives from the White Paper, in whose preparation I am sure he played a considerable part. If that White Paper, Cmnd. 3437—Nationalised Industries: A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives—means anything at all, it means that one must start from the base of a realistic up-to-date valuation of assets.
8.0 p.m.
The Minister repudiated that argument and said that ours was a false analogy. He said that this is not a commercial transaction but is merely a reallocation or reparcelling of assets—we call a bit by another name, send it off in another direction, and leave the same price tag on it. He justifies that argument by saying that a commercial concern would go about a similar exercise in precisely the same way. I rebut that, and in so doing I base myself on my own commercial experience. I have for some time been closely engaged in matters of this kind involving assets of considerable magnitude.
1332 The group in which I am employed has freehold properties held by the holding company, and the operating subsidiaries are charged rentals. The open market valuation of the freehold properties is taken each year, and the rentals charged to the operating subsidiaries are accordingly revised. I challenge the Minister to step down into the commercial arena and try to operate successfully on any other basis.
The right hon. Gentleman used such phrases as "a deliberate and sustained attempt to exaggerate" in trying to repulse our case. In fact, it is he who is guilty of a deliberate and sustained attempt to minimise, to play down, and to try to get away with a fundamental mischief. His hon. Friend the Minister of State, despite the lateness of the hour in Committee, appreciated the point which we made and came round to our view, but his right hon. Friend now repudiates him. I very much hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in support of the Amendment.
§ Mr. BessellI was disappointed by the Minister's reply, and, while endorsing the points made by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I make one further point which, I hope, will influence the Minister to consider the matter further and more seriously. In Committee, the Minister of State recognised that there was validity in our argument, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was angry with the Opposition for returning to the matter again. In my view, the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and his hon. Friends were right to put the Amendment down, not only in view of what was said in Committee but in the light of the further point which I now put to the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the ordinary transactions of commerce this kind of condition would not be required and that the Opposition were seeking to introduce something which would not be normal business practice. He is quite wrong, not only for the reasons already advanced by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge but for another reason. The Government are about to set up an entirely new corporation, a new operating body, which will take over a large number of assets. I agree that 1333 these assets are already in the public sector, but it will take over, for example, 51 per cent, of the total value of the freightliner service, it will take over the assets of the Transport Holding Company and the additional assets which were added to that company by the Act which we discussed earlier this year.
These assets and others to be taken over by the National Freight Corporation will give the Corporation its value. Without them it has none. It is merely a name. It is nothing until it has acquired the assets. If the right hon. Gentleman and I were establishing a private company to acquire assets in the private sector and we were proposing to run bus services, road haulage services or whatever it might be, does he imagine that the person selling those assets to us would do so at their book value? Does he imagine, for example, that a take-over in the private sector takes place on the book value of the assets? If he watches the movement of the stock markets, he must know that, the moment a take-over bid is announced or indicated, the shares go up. This is because of the increased value as a consequence of the offer, which may be made privately or publicly, for the assets under consideration.
§ Mr. MarshThis is the difference between us. With respect, that is a false analogy. In the case of a large industrial concern reallocating its assets because it wished to engage in a different exercise, the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers would not arise.
§ Mr. BessellI accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman says that he is here transferring from one part of the public sector to another part of the public sector assets which are already public assets.
§ Mr. BessellAll right—in competition —and I am pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy is not correct. He is establishing a new corporation, something which does not exist today and which cannot exist until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. He is, therefore, creating a new unit, and it is to that new unit that the existing assets in the public sector will be transferred. In those circumstances, as would happen in the private 1334 sector, first, the Government have a clear duty to make known to the public the value of those assets in consequence of the action which they are taking under the Bill through the creation of the National Freight Corporation and, second, in order that the National Freight Corporation shall operate fairly in relation to the private sector, those assets must be valued in accordance not with their book or historical value but with their present current value.
§ Mr. ManuelI agree with my right hon. Friend, and I expressed my view on the analogy of a new unit coming into being when we debated the matter in Committee. We have past practice to go on. When the gas boards were set up, all the municipal undertakings were taken over. The capital debt and any surpluses of those undertakings were taken over by the gas boards. The same happened in the electricity industry. Where certain sections of industry, on the gas side or on the electricity side, were privately owned—there were some such in certain areas—they were taken over and compensation was paid. But there was just a clear transfer from one public ownership to another where undertakings were municipally or communally owned. The same happened when the National Health Service was formed to replace the local authority health service. There was no compensation paid.
I am sorry to have taken so long in my intervention to correct the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will forgive me for the time I have taken.
§ Mr. BessellI accept the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We have had many long exchanges upstairs but perhaps we had both better remember that we are now in the House and not in Committee.
With respect, I am sure that he is on the wrong point here. I accept that in the case of gas and electricity, compensation was paid to those parts of the private sector concerned on the basis of the true value of the asset. The others were taken over from the municipal undertakings, in some cases, I believe, without any compensation at all, because they were still to be operated to the benefit of the same community.
But here a completely new form of operation is being established. One is 1335 not saying, "Here are the gas and electricity industries. We shall continue to operate them although they may be under a different name and control." One is saying: "Here is an entirely new concept of freight direction and ownership." There are not only the Transport Holding Company and all its assets but things like the controlling interest in the freight-liner service which will be taken away from British Rail. I regret that, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may also regret it. This will now come under the control of a new Corporation.
In those circumstances it is right, irrespective of the effect on the private sector, that there should be a correct and accurate valuation so that we know where we start. That is also important if only from the point of view of the competitive element which is bound to enter into this. I do not believe that it is the Minister's wish to give an unfair or special advantage to the National Freight Corporation.
§ Mr. StaintonSome of the assets may be valued excessively in the British Rail or Transport Holding Company's accounts as they now stand. There is an item somewhat in excess of £300 million in British Rail's present balance sheet which refers to excessive valuations at the time of take-over.
§ Mr. BessellThis illustrates the point even better, because it is not merely a question of writing up the assets, if that is the decision of an independent firm of auditors, but might very well be a question of writing them down. They might well prove, for various reasons, such as return on capital, not to be worth as much as they appear to be worth—
§ Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)On a point of order. Has not this aspect of the Bill been discussed ad nauseam in Committee? The burden of the complaint of hon. Members opposite today is that there are many Clauses which have not been discussed. Will not this be the case right to the end if this attitude persists?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)Order. I think that the hon. 1336 Gentleman had better let me answer the first point. It is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is discussing an Amendment which has been selected for discussion by Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. BessellThe hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) regularly raises this "phoney" point of order, so we have become used to it.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that the discussion could be terminated, and much valuable time saved to discuss other Amendments, if the Government simply honoured the assurance given in Committee, as reported in Column 211 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The whole House would be wise to return to the Amendment.
§ Mr. BessellI was intending, in any case, to draw my remarks to a close. I hope that I have made the point I want to impress on the Minister. It is vital in setting up the Corporation that we should start with a clean slate and know exactly what the value of the assets is —whether we have to write them down or whether we have to write them up. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is right to look at the matter far more carefully. I am sorry that he gave what I can only regard as a very superficial reply. We are all of us on this side of the House genuinely concerned about this.
§ 8.15 p.m.
Dr. BennettMay I declare a non-interest. Not having been in the closed shop of the Standing Committee, I hope that I am entitled for the first time to address myself to this subject.
A simple issue is at stake. The Amendment says that the capital debt should reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, which seems an eminently reasonable thing to ask. The Minister seems to think that there is something almost of turpitude in our persisting to take this attitude. If he is unwilling to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, that must mean that he intends not to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern. If that 1337 is what he intends, what is he up to? Presumably he is bringing in some assets which have been written down already by injections of the taxpayers' money involved in the writing on of the debts of the previous public authority, thereby bringing written down assets into the capital structure of the new Corporation by way of a veiled subsidy to its operations. This gives the operators with whom it will compete every reason to suspect that some dirty work at the cross-roads is going on.
If the Minister cannot bring himself to reflect the value of the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, this is a dirty deal and should therefore be thrown out.
§ Mr. MarshI hesitate to take up more of the time of the House so I shall be very brief.
This problem has arisen before. The 1962 Transport Act pursued the same sort of approach, and it took well over a year after vesting day to determine the commencing capital debt. It is a very complicated and difficult exercise. It would be totally wrong to depart from the concept in the Bill of working on the assumption of the reapportionment of existing rights and liabilities and try to value the assets of the Corporation as a going concern, because we are dealing here with assets which are in competition with private enterprise now, which are in public ownership now, and all we are doing is reallocating, as a company would do.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made a special point about the White Paper on Financial and Economic Objectives. The Corporation when settling its pricing policy—and this is the protection—will have an obligation to meet its financial targets and to settle its pricing in line with the White Paper. That means that it will have to have regard to the need to make appropriate provision for replacing assets at current value.
Hon. Members opposite are making very heavy weather of this. One finds it difficult to understand why, when they claim to be so pressed for time.
§ Mr. StaintonI follow that this is current commercial practice, but when the Corporation will have a set of books of accounts which reflect current market values, I cannot see why this cannot 1338 become the one and only book of accounts.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerDid the hon. Gentleman move this Amendment?
Mr. TaylorYes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister has given what he has called his reply, and since he spoke earlier his arguments have been torn to shreds by my hon. Friends while not one single hon. Member opposite has taken part in the debate.
§ Mr. MarshPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer a question. Many of my hon. Friends are exerting considerable restraint because I have gone to some trouble to ask them to. Does he want them to speak? They are perfectly willing to do so.
Mr. TaylorWe have been aware on previous Amendments of blatant filibustering by hon. Members opposite. The only reason we have not had it on this Amendment is that they know their case is indefensible. If they doubt that, let them consider some of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He asked why we were discussing this matter at all when we discussed it fully in Committee. When he said that, those of his hon. Friends who were on the Standing Committee remained silent. They know the answer. It is that, if the Minister had confirmed the reply given in Committee, we would not have taken one minute of the time of the House in discussing this Amendment. The clear assurance given in Committee has been broken. We asked the Government for an assurance that assets would be valued on the basis of an up to date valuation and the answer was "yes".
§ Mr. Leslie HuckfieldThe hon. Gentleman is beginning to froth at the mouth once again. The reason that some of my hon. Friends have not spoken is not a reflection of lack of interest—they have the interest—but is to enable them to hear some of the calamitous arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. TaylorThe hon. Gentleman always rushes to the aid of his Front Bench when it calls for it. What we 1339 are looking for are not debating points but arguments, and I remind him that many of his constituents will find their businesses and jobs affected by the position we are discussing.
§ Mr. HuckfieldMy constituents will gain substantially from other sections of the Bill, including an oil refinery.
Mr. TaylorWe wasted a great deal of time in Committee because hon. Members brought in a lot of nonsense in answer to brief passing references. As happened in Committee, when we get a good argument we can depend upon the hon. Gentleman to try to divert it. He does so because his own case is indefensible. But this is a case which cannot be ignored. Not one minute would have been taken up on this Amendment if the Government had kept the assurance they gave in Committee.
It was in the light of the Government's assurance in Committee that I withdrew my Amendment, so the Minister has no right to blame us for taking up the matter again.
The Minister of State's second argument was crystal clear. He said that all we were concerned with here was a transfer from one public enterprise to another —a simple transaction of shoving assets from one public authority to another.
§ Mr. LeadbitterThe hon. Gentleman knows very well that, in Committee, I gave him some advice that the instrument of his verbosity had got itself into a speed wobble. Will he now answer this question steadily? Will he tell us in what respects, in dealing with the question of capital debt, Clause 3(3) and Schedule 2 are different from the way in which it was dealt with under the Tory Administration?
Mr. TaylorI dealt with this point in my opening speech. I have tried to save time by not repeating it, but I shall have to. Admittedly this procedure was laid down in the 1962 Act by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has been attending more regularly than many hon. Members opposite. I am astounded that so few of them are taking part in the debate. From him at least we had ideas—revolutionary ideas which helped the country. 1340 Section 6 of the 1962 Act does not lay down inflexible guide lines. My right hon. Friend was not one for inflexible guide lines. He was a visionary who made an enormous contribution to transport. I can say these things in his absence because they would embarrass him if he were here. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] I am sorry. I was saying that I did not want to embarrass him but it is good that he should hear this tribute, which is wholly deserved.
My right hon. Friend did not lay down inflexible guide lines. The Act said that commencing capital debt, the time of repayment of principal, the rate of interest and other transactions of debt shall be such
… as the Minister may from time to time direct with the approval of the Treasury.Since 1962, two things have happened. We have had a change of Government and we have changed the Minister of Transport. Both were moves in the wrong direction.
§ Mr. LeadbitterI must fasten the hon. Gentleman down. He says that these conditions were even laid down by the Tory Government in dealing with capital debt. Then he says that what is wrong is that there has been a change of Government and of Minister. What nonsense he is talking.
Mr. TaylorThe hon. Gentleman is very offensive. He always is when he is on a weak point. Even if we were to accept that we had a wise, sound and stable Government in whose hands these flexibilities could be placed, I remind him that the Minister has said that these would be transfers from one public authority to another and that there would be no real change. The Minister says that the Transport Holding Company and the National Freight Corporation can be considered as two identical public authorities. Hon. Members opposite are ashamed to take part in the discussion after that.
§ Mr. ManuelI tried to deal with this point upstairs in Committee. Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that not only this Government but previous Tory Governments have followed this same practice when public ownership was involved? These transfers and amalgamations took place under Tory Governments as well 1341 and the same principle was applied in the same way as is being done here.
§ 8.30 p.m.
Mr. TaylorEven the hon. Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Manuel), when he is dealing with water undertakings, does not have three or four companies whose taps he can use at different times. We are dealing with competitive enterprise, and he ought to bear this in mind.
§ Mr. ManuelThese were competitive enterprises.
Mr. TaylorI know that the Government are trying to hold me up, but to talk about water concerns in the same breath as road haulage is absurd.
How can the Minister possibly consider the National Freight Corporation as being the same kind of undertaking as the Transport Holding Company? Has the Transport Holding Company a right to put private road hauliers out of business by the prices it quotes, which will be on the basis of its financial structure? It had not, but under this Bill there is such power. Under the provision of special authorisations we find that the National Freight Corporation can virtually put private road hauliers out of business on certain routes. This competition should be on a fair basis. This is not simply a transfer of assets from one corporation to another, but a transfer with wide and sweeping powers.
Has no one heard of Clause 45? There are wide and sweeping powers there dealing with competition in manufacture and repair. These powers are given to the new Corporation. How can the Minister say that this is a simple transfer?
I was appalled that he did not endeavour to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) about transferring the assets of the freightliner company. Is this to be done on the basis of net assets, book assets, full value, real value? If it is as he suggested, by the apportionment of a share of the capital debt of British Railways, it should be borne in mind that this capital debt has been written down, by two Acts and by this Bill, by £2,000 million.
§ Mr. BessellHas the hon. Gentleman read the article in a newspaper today, showing the tremendous demand for 1342 freightliner services? Is he aware how wrong it would be to transfer this at book value only?
Mr. TaylorNot only is it unfair, but it is wrong to transfer it at all. We cannot discuss the matter on this Amendment, and I would not seek to do so, because we have plenty of other arguments.
On what basis is the 51 per cent. of the securities of the freightliner company to be transferred—apportionment or capital debt? These capital debts are not fair and reasonable. They have no relationship to the real value of the asset. The hon. Member for Bodmin has referred to the fantastic growth potential of freightliner services.
The Minister said with some feeling that we were trying to shackle the new National Freight Corporation. What kind of shackles are we trying to put on? The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) thinks we are unfair. Has he looked at the Amendment and considered its implications? How is it unfair, unwise, or discriminatory, simply to suggest that the capital debt of the new National Freight Corporation should be based on the fair asset value as a going concern?
§ Mr. Leslie HuckfieldCan the hon. Member give some assurance that most of the private concerns with which he seems to be so familiar would have the same kind of reflection of the assets of that company as a going concern?
Mr. TaylorI have dealt with that point fully. I must get on, otherwise the Government will complain that I have taken too long, although I have been constantly interrupted. Real fears exist in private industry which the Minister has done nothing to alleviate. Bearing in mind that this discussion has been made possible by, and is the result of, a clear and categorical assurance given to us in Committee on the basis of which we withdrew our Amendment, I hope that all my hon. Friends will vote on the Amendment and will protest at the shameful treatment which the Government are meting out.
§ Mr. MarshWhen the hon. Gentleman says that he wants all his hon. Friends to vote with him, I presume that he is talking about the eight hon. Members 1343 opposite present in the Chamber on this important issue.
Mr. TaylorThat is a very foolish point to make. I could deal with it at some length. One thing which has appalled me is that, when we are considering the expenditure of vast sums of public money at a time of financial crisis, there is only a handful of hon. Members on the benches opposite. Every hon. Member on this side know the implications of this matter and how important it is. Unlike hon. Members opposite, who have kept an eye on the Minister to make sure that he does not step out of line, my hon. Friends have confidence in those of us who have been entrusted with the task of dealing with the Bill.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House proceeded to a Division.
§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members have been unable to obtain entry into the Aye Lobby due to the crowd of Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—who have been congregating at the entry into the Lobby in the Members' Lobby. May I ask two things? Were the full six minutes allowed before the doors were locked? Secondly, can action be taken to ensure that a crush of hon. Members is not allowed to stand in the Members' Lobby thereby excluding Member who wish to vote from obtaining entry into the Lobby?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am advised that the clock was working accurately, and Standing Orders have been applied. That is the reply to the hon. Member's first question. As to the second question, I will instruct the Serjeant at Arms to make sure that the entries are kept clear.
§ Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Is it not unusual that only Conservative and Liberal hon. Members of the House were unfortunate in their passage through the Lobby?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am afraid that is not a point of order.
§ Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)(seated and covered): In the 18 years during which I have had the honour 1344 and privilege of sitting in the House I have never known anything to happen such as has happened tonight. Many of my hon. Friends and I made our way into the Chamber in good time but were prevented from reaching the door on the Government side of the House by the inordinate crush of hon. Members moving in all directions. While I would not question your Ruling, Sir, that the proper time limit was observed by the attendant, nevertheless there is something wrong with the procedure where the crush of hon. Members prevents other hon. Members from carrying out their duty.
I wish to assure you, Sir, that the hon. Members concerned all made their way into the Chamber in good time and were physically prevented from entering the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have dealt with the question of the application of Standing Orders. I will ensure that the Serjeant at Arms keeps the gangways and entrances clear. More than that I cannot do.
§ Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)(seated and covered): On a point of order. It is hard to estimate how many hon. Members were prevented from going through the door to vote, but in my submission there were at least 20 to 24. This represents a very serious situation in which many hon. Members who came as quickly as they could found that there was such a great concourse of hon. Members at this door and this part of the Chamber that they were quite unable to vote. In those circumstances, Sir— if I can make myself heard about the hubbub on the other side—is there any reason in equity why it should not be possible to take the Division again?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to continue. I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter of the present Division, but the business must be allowed to proceed.
§ Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)(seated and covered): On a point of order—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman is about to raise the same point of order, I am afraid I cannot hear it.
§ Mr. Grant-FerrisOn a point of order. I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, completely, but I suggest that when a Division is alleged to have been badly taken, or if there is a fault with a Division, it is in the discretion of the Chair to call another Division. If you wish not to call another Division, we must accept it, but if on consideration you feel that we should have another Division, I think this is what the House would wish.
| Division No. 172.] | AYES | [8.40 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fortescue, Tim | MacArthur, Ian |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Foster, Sir John | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) |
| Astor, John | Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain |
| Awdry, Daniel | Gibson-Watt, David | McMaster, Stanley |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Glyn, Sir Richard | Maddan, Martin |
| Batsford, Brian | Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Maginnis, John E. |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Goodhart, Philip | Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Goodhew, Victor | Marten, Neil |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Gower, Raymond | Maude, Angus |
| Bessell, Peter | Grant, Anthony | Mawby, Ray |
| Biffen, John | Grant-Ferris, R. | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Gresham Cooke, R. | Mills, Peter (Torrington) |
| Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel | Grieve, Percy | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Blaker, Peter | Gurden, Harold | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Boardman, Tom | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Monro, Hector |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Brewis, John | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Murton, Oscar |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Neave, Airey |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hawkim, Paul | Nott, John |
| Bryan, Paul | Hay, John | Onslow, Cranley |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Burden, F. A. | Heseltine, Michael | Pardoe, John |
| Campbell, Gordon | Higgins, Terence L. | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Hiley, Joseph | Peel, John |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Hill, J. E. B. | Percival, Ian |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hirst, Geoffrey | Peyton, John |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Holland, Philip | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hordern, Peter | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Clegg, Walter | Hornby, Richard | Pounder, Rafton |
| Cooke, Robert | Howell, David (Guildford) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Corfield, F. V. | Hunt, John | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Costain, A. P. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Iremonger, T. L. | Pym, Francis |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Crowder, F. P. | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Dance, James | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kershaw, Anthony | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Kimball, Marcus | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoake) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Kirk, Peter | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Kitson, Timothy | Royle, Anthony |
| Doughty, Charles | Lambton, Viscount | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Drayson, G. B. | Lane, David | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. |
| Eden, Sir John | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) | Sharples, Richard |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Longden, Gilbert | Silvester, Frederick |
| Farr, John | Lubbock, Eric | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Sinclair, Sir George |
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerNothing has been shown to me to suggest that the Division was inequitable or out of order. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not proceed with this point of order.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman does not continue the same point of order.
§ The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 281.
| Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Smith, John (London & W'minster) | van Straubenzee, W. R. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Speed, Keith | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Stainton, Keith | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Steel, David (Roxburgh) | Walker, Peter (Worcester) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Stoddart, Anthony | Walters, Dennis | Wright, Esmond |
| Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.(Ripon) | Weatherill, Bernard | Wylie, N. R. |
| Tapsell, Peter | Webster, David | Younger, Hn. George |
| Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Wells, John (Maidstone) | |
| Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart) | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) | Williams, Donald (Dudley) | Mr. Jasper More and |
| Temple, John M. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) | Mr. Reginald Eyre. |
| Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.) |
| Albu, Austen | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Eadie, Alex | Judd, Frank |
| Alldritt, Walter | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Kelley, Richard |
| Allen, Scholefield | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Anderson, Donald | Ellis, John | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) |
| Archer, Peter | English, Michael | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Ensor, David | Lawson, George |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Faulds, Andrew | Lee, John (Reading) |
| Barnett, Joel | Fernyhough, E. | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Baxter, William | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) |
| Bence, Cyril | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Foley, Maurice | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Binns, John | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Loughlin, Charles |
| Blackburn, F. | Ford, Ben | Luard, Evan |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Forrester, John | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Fowler, Gerry | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Booth, Albert | Fraser, John (Norwood) | McCann, John |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Freeson, Reginald | MacColl, James |
| Boyden, James | Galpern, Sir Myer | MacDermot, Niall |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Gardner, Tony | Macdonald, A. H. |
| Bradley, Tom | Garrett, W. E. | McGuire, Michael |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Ginsburg, David | McKay, Mrs. Margaret |
| Brooks, Edwin | Gourlay, Harry | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) | Gregory, Arnold | Maclennan, Robert |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Grey, Charles (Durham) | McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | MacPherson, Malcolm |
| Buchan, Norman | Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) |
| Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. | Manuel, Archie |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mapp, Charles |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Coe, Denis | Hamling, William | Marquand, David |
| Coleman, Donald | Hannan, William | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Concannon, J. D. | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Conlan, Bernard | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Mayhew, Christopher |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Haseldine, Norman | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Hazell, Bert | Mikardo, Ian |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Millan, Bruce |
| Cronin, John | Heffer, Eric S. | Miller, Dr. M. S. |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) | Milne, Edward (Blyth) |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Hooley, Frank | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Molloy, William |
| Dalyell, Tam | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Moonman, Eric |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hoy, James | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Huckfield, Leslie | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Morris, John (Aberavon) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Moyle, Roland |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Murray, Albert |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Neal, Harold |
| Delargy, Hugh | Hunter, Adam | Newens, Stan |
| Dell, Edmund | Hynd, John | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.) |
| Dempsey, James | Irvine, Sir Arthur | Oakes, Gordon |
| Dewar, Donald | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Ogden, Eric |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Dickens, James | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Oram, Albert E. |
| Dobson, Ray | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) | Orme, Stanley |
| Doig, Peter | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Oswald, Thomas |
| Driberg, Tom | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Dunn, James A. | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Roebuck, Roy | Varley, Eric G. |
| Palmer, Arthur | Rose, Paul | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Park, Trevor | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) | Wallace, George |
| Parker, John (Dagenham) | Ryan, John | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Pavitt, Laurence | Sheldon, Robert | Weitzman, David |
| Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. | Wellbeloved, James |
| Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Whitaker, Ben |
| Pentland, Norman | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | Whitlock, William |
| Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Slater, Joseph | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. | Small, William | Willams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Spriggs, Leslie | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Probert, Arthur | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Randall, Harry | Stonehouse, John | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Rankin, John | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Rees, Merlyn | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Reynolds, C. W. | Swain, Thomas | Winnick, David |
| Rhodes, Geoffrey | Swingler, Stephen | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Richard, Ivor | Symonds, J. B. | Woof, Robert |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Taverne, Dick | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George | Yates, Victor |
| Robertson, John (Paisley) | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George | |
| Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as) | Thornton, Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | Tinn, James | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Tomney, Frank | Mr. Neil McBride. |