THE POST OFFICE

HC Deb 05 May 1969 vol 783 cc119-203

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 37, at end insert: 'but not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members'. We come now to that part of the Bill which deals with the structure of the new Post Office. On Clauses 6 and 7 we shall be considering some of the responsibilities that the new body will have to discharge. I draw the Postmaster-General's attention to the Long Title, which says, among other things, … conducted by the holder thereof amongst authorities constituted for the purpose …". It is our contention that the constitution laid down in Clause 6 is vague in the extreme. Subsection (2) says: The Post Office shall consist of a chairman and, to a number not exceeding twelve nor falling short of—

1. (a) three, as regards the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day; and
2. (b) six, after the expiration of that period, of other members, whether part-time or full-time."

The purpose of the Amendment is merely to define what these six shall do. At this early stage in the Bill, it is important that we should start as we mean to go on. Vagueness in setting up this body will prove harmful. Earlier, we were discussing vesting date as being 1st October, and while that may seem a long way away in terms of organising the new body, it is not so very far away.

I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman has allowed the drafting in Clause 6 to be so vague. So far, he has proved intransigent to suggestions from this side, but I hope he will look favourably upon this sensible Amendment. The Clause deals with the structure of the new body, which will have a great sweep of new powers. He should, therefore, ensure that there is in the Bill a clear definition of how many part-time and how many full-time members should serve.

Consistency is lacking in Clause 6. In subsection (2)(a) we have a clear definition of the period up to the appointed day. That is quite sensible and understandable. But for some unknown reason we move from that period into the future with no definition. The Postmaster-General owes the House a clear explanation why the matter has been left in this way.

8.0 p.m.

Later in the same Clause we have the normal definition of the sort of people who would be likely to serve on this body. I was comparing it with the definition of people likely to serve in the British Steel Corporation, and I found that except for about three words the definitions are identical.

Captain Orr

My hon. Friend will doubtless have noticed that in a later Amendment the Postmaster-General is proposing to remove the definition altogether.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, but that had not escaped my notice. I do not understand why the Postmaster-General is going in for this very vague structure. Perhaps he will be able to explain the reason. I can assure him that the public—and we are the stewards of the public purse—are not helped by this apparent vagueness. The Postmaster-General said earlier that he was anxious that the Corporation should enjoy the same benefits as would a private body. I can assure him that no private body would draw up its rules of procedure in this vague, open-ended manner.

If the Minister will not say who the people will be—whether they are to be part-time or full-time—why bother to retain this part of the Clause? It is meaningless. It refers to six people and implies that we do not need to go into detail whether they are full-time or part-time members. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment sympathetically.

Mr. Stonehouse

The hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) has complained that the provisions in the Clause are vague. I beg to disagree with him; they are clear. He asked a number of questions which were not strictly in order, but as he was not ruled out of order perhaps I may explain that subsection (2)(a) allows a minimum of three members to be appointed on Royal Assent and to hold office until the appointed day so that they can prepare for the smooth handing over of the Post Office to the Post Office Corporation, which will take over on the appointed day.

The reason for the words "whether part time or full time" in paragraph (b) is to make it crystal clear that the Minister may appoint part-timers to the board. The House generally recognises that there is an advantage for part-timers with outside experience to be allowed to participate in the activities of the boards such as this, although they may not have full-time executive responsibilities.

Snell individuals can be of great value to a board, because they are able to inject into its deliberations a great deal of their own experience of the outside, and can provide many opportunities for contact between the Post Office and outside bodies with which the Post Office would wish to be in contact. There is therefore an advantage in spelling out in this subsection the fact that part-timers may be included.

I am attracted by the figures proposed in the Amendment. My view is that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends may have got the figures right—for this point of time. But it is my responsibility to appoint members of the board both for the interim period and after the appointed day, onwards. I may well choose to appoint part-timers within the figures laid down in the Amendment, but we are concerned with something which will apply, if not for all time, for a very long time, and I believe that it would be unwise for the House to try to limit the position of a future Minister who, in the light of the experience of the board, might wish to appoint a different number of part-timers from that quoted in the Amendment.

For those reasons I appeal to the House to give a future Minister more flexibility than the Amendment would allow. I appeal to the hon. Member and his Friends to consider withdrawing the Amendment. If they will not, I must advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Peyton

I agree that one of the complaints about the Clause is that it is vague. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand that Parliament does not always take kindly to giving a blank cheque to Ministers. The fact that there is Parliamentary hostility evidently does not discourage Ministers from a bad habit, namely, the introduction of loosely-worded Clauses like this, with the Government telling the House nothing about their intentions for the board.

That is why I put down an Amendment concerning part-time members. This question affects the whole constitution of the board. All that we are told is that the Post Office shall consist of a Chairman—surprise surprise; these boards each have a Chairman—and a number of members not exceeding 12 or falling short of three. A board consisting of three members is much too small. That would more or less prohibit either any part-time member being on the board or anybody being ill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is going outside the scope of the Amendment, which is to delete a later line in subsection (2).

Mr. Peyton

I hope that you will not take too narrow a view of this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had only a brief discussion. The Amendment provides an opportunity for the House to pass comments on the structure of the board. If we are inhibited from mentioning anybody except part-time members it will be very difficult—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but the Amendment is precise. It relates particularly to the line in question, which is concerned with the balance between part-time and full-time members.

Mr. Peyton

There is a contrast, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the structure of the board, and if we are talking of the number of part-time members that we should have on the board it involves some reference to other members. They will not all be part-time members, or we would not get very far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not wish to argue with the hon. Member, but the question of the membership of three concerns a different period from that covered by the Amendment, which relates to a period subsequent to that covered in subsection (2)(a). It is a different period, and therefore a different board. I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

That is a matter of construction. I am not wholly satisfied that that is the case. If it is, it means that the draftsmen's construction of this subsection is that there is no possibility of having a part-time member under paragraph (a) during the first period. If that is so, the Postmaster-General should make it clear. I would find it quite unacceptable that this neophyte board should have no benefit of outside advice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not put down an Amendment to cover that point. The Amendment covers the period in subsection (2)(b), and I am afraid that he cannot go back on paragraph (a).

Mr. Ian Gilmour

On a point of order. Surely the last line of the subsection is related to the first two lines of the subsection and is therefore concerned with both paragraphs, (a) and (b).

Mr. Speed

Could the Postmaster-General perhaps clear this up, because it is germane to the number? We are discussing part-time members. Are they included in (a) and (b) or is it just (b), as he and his Department understand it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not want to restrict the debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help us.

Mr. Peyton

Further to that point of order. With great respect, it is not for the Postmaster-General to say what he meant the words to mean. This is a matter of drafting and you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no possibility of talking about part-time members. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) was right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a matter for the Chair and not for the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I rule that the Amendment relates to the number six and not to three. Therefore, I stand by my original decision.

Mr. Ridley

Further to that point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that line 37 starts at the beginning of the margin and therefore presumably applies to the whole subsection? If it were to apply only to paragraph (b), it would not start at the beginning of the margin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Amendment refers to two and not more than four. This could not relate to the three in the beginning anyway. I have ruled and must ask the hon. Gentleman to adhere to the decision.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Further to that point of order. Surely the words … of other members, whether part-time or full-time. must refer to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Amendment seeks to write into this subsection the words but not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members". As it includes four, it could not possibly relate to paragraph (a), which refers only to three members.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot allow further discussion, I am sorry. The hon. Member was correct in his submission on the two and carried out what I believed to be order.

Mr. Stonehouse

With respect, I should like to point out that … of other members, whether part-time or full-time. does relate to paragraphs (a) and (b). That is my understanding of this. I put this point of view, with respect, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that there shall be no misunderstanding as to our intention about this subsection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. What I am concerned with is the Amendment. The Amendment includes the numbers two and four. It may well be that line 39 of the subsection covers paragraph (a) as well, but the Amendment does not cover paragraph (a), because its numbers, by their very size, exclude that paragraph, witch accounts only for three.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Further to that point of order. With great respect, the Amendment includes two, which plainly is included in three, and also says: … not less than two nor more than four …". So the Amendment refers to both. "Not less than two" refers to the three and the whole of it applies to both—

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the House will allow me just a moment to reflect.

I am sorry, but, on reflection, I must adhere to the original decision. If we are talking about numbers which vary between two and four, they cannot possibly relate to subsection (2)(a), which, at the maximum, includes three. I must allow the debate to proceed on that basis.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

Further to the point of order. Subsection (2)(a) refers to the minimum of three, which could well be more: it could well be up to 12. There is a certain flexibility here for the Minister. He must appoint a minimum of three, but has flexibility up to 12 in relation to paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b), in which the minimum is six but the flexibility is up to 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has helped me to clear my mind. I must alter my decision and allow the Amendment to apply to subsection (2)(a). The term "minimum" alters my view and I will therefore allow the Amendment to cover paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Mr. Peyton.

Mr. Peyton

In thanking you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must say that I do not in the least envy you your heavy task, and I am sorry if I have been the cause of embarrassment to you, but I am grateful to you for your guidance in ruling as you have done.

My argument relates basically to the structure of the board. When I put down the Amendment, I introduced some flexibility, because I recognised that the size of the board would grow. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman something about the proportion, whether he envisages that it will be a regular proportion between part-time and full-time members, and what he regards as the optimum number of the board, as opposed to the maximum number.

He will be aware that it is not always easy to get adequate people to sit on the boards of nationalised industries, for two reasons—first, because they are singularly ill-rewarded financially, particularly part-time members, and, second, because they seldom get anything except kicks. Their rewards are very shabby.

Often, when they are attacked, here or elsewhere, Ministers—I willingly exclude the right hon. Gentleman from this—are too cowardly to defend them. I know that, if the right hon. Gentleman were responsible, he would do his best—rightly so—to defend his own appointees on such boards. It is important that those who serve on them should have the confidence that, so long as they are kept in their jobs—in other words, so long as they hold the Minister's confidence—they will aways enjoy his public support. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would go along with that.

The House is entitled to some more enlightenment about the Minister's thoughts on the whole structure of the board and about how many part-time members he is thinking of. He has said that he thought that the Amendment had it just about right. We take that as a graceful compliment, but I should like to know in more detail what he has in mind. That is a sort of Freudian revelation which shows the type of people the Minister would consider as appointees to the board. I appreciate the Minister's remarks about there being some value in having part-time members, and I will leave the rest of my comments—I had intended to speak at some length about the type of people who should be appointed—until later.

I do not like the idea of Ministers asking Parliament in vague terms—Clause 6(2) is a good example of vagueness—for powers to appoint, leaving matters to work themselves out. There should be a clearer duty on those concerned and the provision should not be left loosely phrased.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I had not intended to take part in this discussion. I rise to disagree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because, unlike him and my right hon. Friend, I am not enamoured of either the Clause as drafted or the Amendment. Indeed, I am not all that keen on having part-time members on boards of this kind.

I do not believe that part-timers of this type are as necessary, able or efficient as we are led to believe. Nobody knows precisely how much time they put in or the value of the work they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Yeovil said, invariably they are more than adequately paid. A man earning £10,000 a year will not consider part-time employment producing £2,000 a year as particularly well paid, but to a nurse earning a few pounds a week £2,000 a year is a fortune.

The radio is not unconnected with the Post Office. There was once a man called the "Radio Doctor" who became a Tory Minister and who—this is typical of the present Labour Government—was appointed Chairman of the B.B.C. He works part-time in that post and I am told that he draws about £6,000 a year, but he is also earning between £10,000 and £15,000 as chairman of a private company.

If the Minister will appoint … not less than two nor more than four … part-time members of this board, what salaries are they to get? Will they earn £6,000 a year in this capacity? How many hours will they put in and how many meetings will they attend? The odds are 1,000 to 1 that they will all be Tories because it is the habit these days of a Labour Government to appoint Tories as chairmen of all sorts of organisations, including the B.B.C. and the public sector of the steel industry. We are creating jobs for the boys, but Tory boys, on a part-time basis. What is more—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The principle of part-time members is already accepted in the Clause, which is not at present under discussion. The Amendment seeks to write in a balance between full-time and part-time members. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment in his remarks.

Mr. Lewis

Did not the Minister adduce precisely the argument that I am adducing but in reverse, Mr. Deputy Speaker'? Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Yeovil went further and spoke of all sorts of ancillary matters, and the hon. Member for Yeovil said that part-time members of this type were not well paid. I am putting the other side of the argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to oppose the principle which the Clause already accepts. Neither the Minister nor the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) did that.

Mr. Lewis

I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am merely seeking to discover what …not less than two nor more than four … part-time members means. Why two? Why not more than four? If two is the right figure we do not need a reference to four. My experience of one part-timer in such a capacity is that he or she may frequently not attend meetings because his or her outside interests are worth more. It is a strange phenomenon of the human race and part of the British character that people tend to give more time to the function which produces for them a larger salary. If one of these part-timers is earning £15,000 or £20,000 in a private capacity, he will not, for £6,000 in a part-time capacity, attend meetings of the board if they conflict with meetings affecting his outside interests. Why is there a reference to … not less than two nor more than four … and why is there no mention of three? Is it thought that if two do not turn up for a meeting there will still be two others who will attend? If two have not bothered to turn up perhaps the other two will not turn up either for the very reason that the first two decided to stay away.

Mr. Speed

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under Schedule 1 the whole board may be absent for up to three months without disciplinary action being taken? Why is he confining his remarks to part-time members? The whole flipping lot might not turn up.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

If I were to answer the hon. Gentleman I should probably be called to order, but I take the point he has made.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

The hon. Gentleman said that the trouble with having two or four part-time members was that they might all be away. Surely that is an argument for having more part-time members, because then some of them might be there.

Mr. Lewis

I had not thought of that point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues will tell us why the magic figure of two or the magic figure of four was picked on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Amendment, if accepted, would not place a mandate on the Postmaster-General to appoint four part-time members. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is arguing on the basis that four is a mandatory figure. The Amendment would give flexibility. It suggests an upper limit and a lower limit to the number of part-time members. I feel, that the hon. Gentleman still has not quite appreciated the point.

Mr. Lewis

I am arguing in accordance with the Amendment, and I am giving my reasons for thinking that neither figure is suitable. If the Amendment were carried, the maximum number of part-time members would be four and the minimum would be two—

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

If I may say so, I am now beginning to see why the Minister did not write in a figure. A lower figure of two part-time members in a board of 12 appears to us to be sensible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the figure should be different.

Mr. Lewis

Neither figure has been logically explained to me. I cannot see it working very well with this board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman may not think these the right figures, but he is now on the point of principle that these members should be part-time.

Mr. Gilmour

The Clause as it stands does not make it obligatory for them to be part-time members. The Amendment would do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so surely the question of whether or not there should be part-time members must be relevant to the discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I understand it, the question of whether there are part-time members is left to the Postmaster-General, so the principle of part-time membership is accepted. We are now discussing whether the balance should be written in by this Amendment.

Mr. Gilmour

With great respect, the present position is that there may or may not be part-time members on the board. The Postmaster-General has discretion there. If the Amendment were to be accepted, there would have to be at least two part-time members. The matter would then no longer be within the discretion of the Postmaster-General. I therefore suggest that whether or not there should be part-time members is highly relevant to our discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understood that the hon. Member for West Ham, North was discussing the whole question of the principle. It is conceded in the Bill that, if the Postmaster-General wishes, there may be part-time members. The Amendment accepts that principle by seeking to write in the number of part-time members. The question whether part-time members should be included at all is not an issue on this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley

Perhaps I may say, having listened to all the speeches in this debate, that I think that the debate has been widened enough by earlier speeches for even the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to go through.

Mr. Lewis

I seem to be back where I started. I was right in saying that the Amendment would prescribe not fewer than two nor more than four part-time members, but I see no logical reason for either figure. I know that the Clause says that the Postmaster-General will be able to decide whether there should or should not be part-time members, but I am not arguing that point. He will decide one way or the other, and he may still say, "We shall have 12 as part-time members." If I discussed that at length, no doubt I should be out of order. I shall not argue on the 12, but the same principle could apply to the 12 as to the two or four. Whether it is two or four makes no difference. It seems a waste of time, money and endeavour to give mandatory powers to the Postmaster-General that he must have two or four part-time members.

Captain Orr

The Amendment says that he must not in any circumstances have more than four.

Mr. Lewis

I agree, but two or four would be equally bad. I cannot see the necessity for two or four part-time members. I agree that as the Clause stands the Postmaster-General can have two, four, six or 12. The Amendment says that he must have two as a minimum and no more than four as a maximum.

I think we have got it clear, but it is a little difficult when one gets into this field of high mathematics. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) would work it out with matchsticks. We have to decide, if we agree to this Amendment, whether to mandate the Postmaster-General, whoever he may be at the time, to have two or four part-time members. Those members would have no restriction upon them as to how many hours they put in, and there is no suggestion about how many times they have to attend meetings.

The hon. Member for Yeovil said that part-time members are underpaid and therefore rather difficult to get. I think that there are plenty of honourable people in the Post Office who would give part-time service on such part-time salaries because those salaries would be more than they get for their full-time work at the moment. I assure the Postmaster-General that he should not worry about whether there are two or four. He should stick to the 12 full-time members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Bill already gives power to the Postmaster-General to appoint part-time members. The question is the number and whether it shall be mandatory.

Mr. Lewis

There is no necessity for this Amendment. My right hon. Friend should stick to the Clause as it is. As it stands, the Postmaster-General will have the right to appoint up to 12 in whatever way he thinks fit. There may be 12 part-time members or six of one and half a dozen of the other kind, or he can have the two or four as suggested by the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

The hon. Member is right. The Postmaster-General could have two or four part-time members, but unless the Amendment were accepted he could have all 12 as part-time members, which I am sure is not what the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Lewis

I accept that probably the Clause could so empower my right hon. Friend. I do not think that, if the Clause were unamended, he would appoint all twelve as part-time members, but if the Amendment were carried my right hon. Friend would be obliged to have at least two, and probably four, part-time members. I do not back horses, but if ever there were a cert it is that if two or four were carried it would go into the Bill.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

It is a question of defining the numbers. As the Bill stands, it could be any number. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would not wish it to pass as it is now.

Mr. Lewis

It is a question of which is the lesser of two evils. One is leaving it open, so that nothing would be laid down obliging the Postmaster-General to do something, whereas the other definitely would. The whole of my case is to try to persuade my right hon. Friend not to have two and not to have four part-time members. If I could persuade him not to accept the two or the four, the odds are that if the Clause were left as it stood he would appreciate that there should not be any part-time members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman is defeating his own argument. The Amendment, if carried, would guarantee that at least eight members would have to be full time because the maximum number of part-timers would be four.

Mr. Lewis

It would also ensure that there would be four part-timers. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Amendment would ensure that there were eight full-time members, the remaining four would be part-time. To impose a mandatory requirement of two or four part-timers would be wrong.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman spoke of a choice between two evils. Surely he can see which from his point of view is the greater evil. If he stands with the Postmaster-General, he is accepting that by law the Postmaster-General could if he wanted appoint 12 part-time members. The Amendment would limit the Postmaster-General's discretion to appoint 12 part-time members and would limit the number of part-timers to four, thereby helping the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis

The hon. Gentleman cannot have the knowledge that my right hon. Friend has. The hon. Gentleman forgets that after my right hon. Friend has listened to me arguing he will never consider the two or the four, in which case the hon. Gentleman's point will not arise because my right hon. Friend will stick to the 12 being full-time members. I have convinced hon. Members opposite, even the hon. Gentleman, so much so that he is talking about only eight full-time members. My case is that we do not want any part-time members, but this will mean that four will have to be. The Postmaster-General has no right to contract out. He will have to have either two or four.

8.45 p.m.

I should not like my right hon. Friend to be in that position. I might have to ask him hereafter why he had appointed two people part-time to the board. His reply would be, "Do you not remember the Amendment which was passed on Report? You remember the great day when the Secretary of State for Social Services put the health charges up? That was the day when it was agreed to make it mandatory on me to have two or four part-time members on the board". Then, speaking to him not as Postmaster-General but as a good friend, I would say, "Well, John, old boy, I am sorry about that", but he would say nevertheless, "There it is. I have no alternative". My response would be, "If you have to have two or four part-time members on the board, what about it? There are a couple of trade unionists I know who have given a lifetime of service to the Post Office. What about putting them on?". His immediate response, no doubt, would be to tell me, "We always put Tories on these boards". May I have an assurance that they will not be Tories?

Mr. Speed rose—

Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Lewis

Just a minute. Hon. Members seem to be queueing up to interrupt. As I was saying, I should be against that. I do not like giving the Minister or this Government the right to put Tories in good well-paid jobs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Amendment has no reference to the character, qualities or politics of the members who are to be appointed.

Mr. Lewis

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but past experience has taught us what to expect. Now, who was first on the list to interrupt?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue his speech and not incite interventions.

Mr. Lewis

I am giving way to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Gentleman has missed the basic point that the more part-timers there are on the board the smaller will be the total salary bill, because part-timers are paid less than full-timers. The hon. Gentleman ought to be arguing the other way.

Mr. Lewis

I am not sure about that. If they are all part-timers who never turn up, we might find ourselves with amending legislation to provide for more full-timers, and then we should have to double the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment, which would lay down the actual number, thereby circumscribing the Minister's action. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that he is going wide of the question.

Mr. Lewis

It was the fault of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He should learn that, when intervening, he ought to do so within the confines of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That also is outside the Amendment.

Mr. Speed

I am against the hon. Gentleman, but may I try to help? Does he not see that the minimum number is six, and 12 is the maximum. It could be four part-timers out of six.

Mr. Lewis

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come in or where he has arrived from. Perhaps I should explain the point to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the whole of his speech again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), whether he has recently come in or not.

Captain Orr

It could be four out of six.

Mr. Lewis

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do a little mental arithmetic out loud, I shall listen.

Captain Orr

I was just confirming that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is right. Under the Amendment, one could have a board with six members, four of whom are part-time.

Mr. Lewis

Not if the original Clause is carried.

Captain Orr

Yes, out of six.

Mr. Lewis

No. It is four out of 12, which leaves eight.

Mr. Ridley

It does not have to be that always.

Mr. Lewis

Yes, according to the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Will the hon. Gentleman look at subsection (2)(b)? The board shall consist of the chairman and a number not exceeding 12 nor falling short of"— and then in paragraph (b), six, after the expiration of that period. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is right; it could be four out of six.

Mr. Lewis

I stand corrected. I had not seen paragraph (b). My eyes are not all that good. Subject to the new teeth and spectacle charges, perhaps I might get on better. I did not see the (b). I shall have to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to help me.

The point I was making when the hon. Member for Meriden interrupted—I shall not go over it all again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat any of his speech.

Mr. Lewis

I shall not go over it again, but I was about to explain some of my reasons why I did not agree with either two or four. I speak with knowledge going back a few years, and experience has taught me that when part-timers are appointed—and I am not concerned with whether there are two or four, because the principle is the same—they are likely to be like the two or four or two or three dozen part-time members of other boards. I have found invariably that they have so much other work and so many other activities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. The principle as to whether the Postmaster-General may appoint part-time members is already accepted in the Clause. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman several times, all that we are considering now is whether it should be mandatory on the Minister to include particular numbers, with an upper or lower limit. The hon. Gentleman must keep in order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

On a point of order. I take it that in your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are referring to subsection (2)(b). It is the six who may be part-time or full-time. In subsection (2)(a) the figure three is given. That matter has been dealt with, but as I hope to catch your eye shortly I should like to be clear. Are you ruling that the principle of whether there should be part-time members at all is excluded from debate in respect of the whole dozen, because the dozen is made up of the three under subsection 2(a) and the six-plus of subsection 2(b)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is not excluded. What I am saying is what I have said several times—and I must insist that no hon. Members go out of order in this respect, that the principle as to whether the Postmaster-General appoints part-time members is already enshrined in the Clause, and is therefore not at issue at present. The question is whether the actual numbers of a mandatory requirement be written in, which is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

I thought that I had shown hon. Members opposite quite clearly that this is a question of whether it is two or four. I had not discussed the general principle. I was explaining why I thought the two or four would be a bad number to have. I was trying to explain that to me two or four are just as bad. I could perhaps say that one would be bad, but as that is not in the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has repeated this argument several times. He is in danger of becoming tediously repetitious.

Mr. Lewis

I had started to explain, because an hon. Member who has now left the Chamber wanted to get this clear. I shall not go into the question of two or four, but simply argue the merits of why two or four would be an unsatisfactory number on which to mandate the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but he has attacked the Amendment, which lays down two possible figures, and made it clear that he does not want a board of part-time members. He has not offered a solution between those two areas.

Mr. Lewis

I have not offered a solution because I should be out of order. I object to the Amendment because it specifies the number which the hon. Gentleman wants to insist that the Postmaster-General accepts. This is one of the reasons why I am speaking against the Amendment. His Amendment does nothing worthy of support, and it may do the opposite to what I wish, namely it may make it obligatory upon the Postmaster-General to accept a minimum of two and a maximum of four part-time members. I could not accept part-time people in such an occupation.

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has given us a display of mental expertise and agility which should be an example to us all. He is a sort of standing computer, and the facility with which he dealt with the complicated mathematics contained in this Amendment was exemplary. I found a great deal in his argument which I could support because I am a little unhappy about my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not know whether it is right to make it precise as to how many members of the board of the Post Office should be part-time.

On the whole, the maximum amount of flexibility should be left to the Minister. The board is not in the same position as the board of a private company. The directors of such a company are there to represent the interests of shareholders, and to insist upon the maximum use of the shareholders' capital, so that it is imployed to the best advantage and the greatest profit, and nothing else. They are not there to look after the public interest, to think about social considerations, uneconomic services or the interests of consumers.

They are, solely and utterly, there to maximise the return upon the shareholders' capital and they represent the shareholders. The board of a public corporation is in quite a different position. No one puts members on such a board, say the Coal Board, so that they should use as their sole criterion the maximisation of the return upon investment made by the taxpayers in coal—or even railways or telecommunications. If they did, it would be a very strange state of affairs. The directors of the Coal Board would say, "Let us stop digging up coal and get some oil from the Middle East, because it is much more profitable." The directors of the Post Office would say, "Let us not continue to erect these kiosks in remote villages, let us not continue with the post, let us not have a whole serious of things, because they are not strictly economic."

The function of the board of a nationalised industry is totally different from that of a board of directors in private industry. We are wrong to try to ape a private board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he will help me?

Mr. Ridley

It is right to leave the maximum flexibility in this matter of the appointment of members, whether full or part time, to the powers to be in future. I am arguing that it would be wrong to lay down a firm upper and lower limit, of four or two respectively, because I want the field left wide open so that in future different decisions can be taken. I was advancing an analysis of what the functions of a nationalised board are, to support that contention.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not helped me. What he has said has confirmed my feeling at the time that he was out of order.

Mr. Ridley

With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one must be able to bring up arguments in support of one's case. My case is that it would be wrong to tie down the Minister either to four or two, or any number of, part-timers. I am speaking against my hon. Friend's Amendment to tie down too firmly the number of appointments to the board. I might find it difficult to justify that point of view if I were not allowed to give the reasons why I think that, which is all I am trying to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The statement made by the hon. Member is perfectly in order. The wider consideration which he was going into appears to be unrelated to the remarks which he has just made.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

Am I to understand that my hon. Friend is saying that if we give total flexibility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that it would be wiser to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his speech, and the Chair will then decide whether or not he was in order.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

I am merely asking my hon. Friend a question. He asks that the Minister should be given total flexibility, but is he aware that, as the Clause is drawn, that means that the board could consist, apart from the chairman, wholly of part-time members?

Mr. Ridley

I am aware of that, but my hon. Friend's parenthesis, "apart from the chairman", gives him the answer. This is the contention which I am tentatively wishing to put forward in support of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for West Ham, North. Instead of a group of people representing the shareholders' interests, there is here somebody managing the Post Office on behalf of the Minister, or the Treasury, which owns the Corporation. The manager of this industry is called the chairman, and the chairman of such an enormous Corporation should have on his board people who will be of assistance to the manager in managing the industry, and not people who are there to help an outside group of shareholders which in this case does not exist. The chairman of a nationalised industry should have complete scope to put on his board people whom he thinks will be helpful, whether they are part-time or full-time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

As a strong supporter of free enterprise, as I am sure he is, is my hon. Friend saying that the chairman of any board should have complete discretion as to whom he appoints to that board? If he is saying that, will he say how that chairman would ever be disciplined or brought to order by the board, which would be his own creature and would be rather like the present Cabinet?

Mr. Ridley

I am saying just that. I would remind my hon. Friend that the 12 people who are on the board are appointed by the Minister and, therefore, the chairman does not have complete say as to who they are. The other 259,000 people who work in the Post Office are not, and the chairman has complete discretion as to who they are. I point out to my hon. Friend the anomalous position whereby the chairman is allowed to appoint 259,000 people but not the 11 most important people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid than is not at stake in this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley

I quite agree. My hon. Friend misled me, and I apologise for having erred into the direction of his question. I asked this in Committee, and I think the House will do me the justice of agreeing that I am consistent in saying that the main board should be appointed by the chairman, with the Minister perhaps having a power of veto.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He is not addressing himself to the Amendment at all.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on a point that I have ruled to be out of order.

Mr. Baxter

On a point of order. I am most anxious, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the line of argument. The Amendment stipulates … not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members of the board. I am most anxious to hear the argument for these particular figures. I have not heard it up to the moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment, which is concerned with exactly that point.

Mr. Baxter

On a point of order. Surely an hon. Member who finds that there is no method of knowing whether or not an hon. Gentleman will come back to the point of an Amendment, has a right to intervene to draw to the attention of the Chair that the hon. Gentleman is departing from the basis of the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is usurping the function of the Chair. The Chair had already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that he was out of order.

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) perhaps had not understood that I was speaking rather contrary to the Amendment. I was not in full support of the number of part-time members being written into the Bill. I argued in favour of flexibility and of leaving the question more or less open.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Am I to take it from the concluding remarks of the hon. Member that he supports me and in fact is not in favour of either two or four?

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Member will have heard me say just that, not less than two times not more than four, during the course of what I have already said. I think that the matter should be within the jurisdiction of the Minister.

I am not certain about part-time members. There are times when part-time members are suitable on the boards of nationalised industries, but I can envisage circumstances when there should be none at all. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible for there to be none since it stipulates a minimum of two.

I well remember the passionate attack on part-time members of boards made by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) when we were debating the Steel Bill. Although I do not employ the same reasons as he did on that occasion, my criticism of part-time members is as follows. They bring expertise to a board. If somebody knows a great deal about commerce, finance, marketing or some technological aspect of an industry, then in order to secure his advice it sometimes has been suggested that he should be put on the board of a corporation. I believe that that sort of advice is better obtained by means of consultation and by the payment of a proper fee. Indeed, I feel that sometimes we get highly-skilled advisers on the cheap by making them part-time members of nationalised boards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting off the point. The Clause already gives power to the Minister to appoint part-time members. What we are now discussing is whether a particular balance and number shall be mandatory on the Minister. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley

With the greatest respect to the Chair, I do not believe that it should be mandatory on the Minister. I believe that he should be free to have no part-time members if he so desires. I was seeking to advance an argument as to why that should be so.

It might well be that the sort of part-timer who could give valuable advice to the Post Office in future would be somebody who would give his advice for a fee and who could be consulted rather as one consults a merchant banker or a consultant in technology or engineering. It would be far more suitable for a nationalised industry to employ that method of getting advice rather than that it should have on its board two part-time members, as would follow from the Amendment. In many cases, part-time members can be helpful, but there is no point in tying oneself down to two, four or, for that matter, three part-time members.

The whole structure of the board should be left as loose as possible though I would accept the corollary that the Chairman should have a special responsibility because the members of the board are simply the chosen advisers and assistants of the chairman and should be in no sense in a statutory position as the directors of a private company are. There is all the difference in the world between a private company and a public company in this respect.

I am hesitant about the wisdom of accepting the Amendment, though it may be that some arguments yet to be advanced by my hon. Friends will persuade me that I am wrong.

Captain Orr

My hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) has done us a service in that it was not entirely clear to me that if the subsection were not amended it would be possible for the Minister to appoint a Post Office board wholly of part-time members.

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) because, like him, I believe that there should be the maximum amount of flexibility. However, in my view, the flexibility proposed is too great. The board will be one of great importance. To understand how important its composition is, one has to look again at the entire Bill and what it is intended that the board shall do.

It will administer one of the greatest employers of labour in the country. It will administer something which has immence authority and power, with an influence which is all-pervading throughout our society. It will also administer what is probably the greatest act of nationalisation that has taken place in our history. The extent of its monopolistic powers shows clearly that the composition of the board will be of maximum importance.

I find it difficult to decide whether there should be a mandatory upper or lower limit on the number of part-time members whom the Minister can appoint, without knowing something of the managerial functions which they are to perform. It is most important to know whether the board is to have the overall surveillance of a director-general who will be managing director, whether the chairman will be managing director, or whether the board will run the enterprise from day to day. It is upon that kind of consideration that we should decide whether to compel the Minister to have a certain number of part-time members or stipulate an upper limit to the number of part-time members whom he can appoint. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about this, because it is important. This is not simply an argument amongst ourselves about numbers, with hon. Members engaging in some sort of lottery. We are dealing with what will be a great nationalised industry—

Mr. W. Baxter

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of part-time members or full-time members?

Mr. Hay

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. and gallant Friend is led by the wiles of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) into answering that question, will he not be transgressing the Ruling about which you have advised us several times?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The issue of part-time members is established already in the Clause, and it cannot be raised on the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I was in the course of putting a point to him when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) raised his point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I suggest to the hon. Member that what he is putting to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is out of order.

Mr. Baxter

That may be so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If it is so, the hon. Member cannot proceed. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter

With respect, I was raising a question to which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took no exception.

The hon. Member for Henley raised a point of order to draw attention to what he thought was an inaccurate intervention on my part. You, in your wisdom or otherwise—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is either in order or out of order. That is a matter for the Chair to declare upon. The Chair has ruled the hon. Member out of order and that is an end to it. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter

On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot argue with the Chair. Captain Orr.

Mr. Baxter

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet asking a question and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given way. A point of order was raised, and I appreciate your ruling on the matter. As it appears to the majority of the House to be correct, I bow to that ruling. On the basis of the Amendment and the questions that were directed to the House for its edification and solution by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, I wanted to know, because of his remarks, whether he was in favour of part-time members. I was coming on to say that whether there be two, four or more, the Amendment stipulates that there are to be not less than two nor more than four … I could not grasp the purport of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which seemed to imply that there was no justification for part-time members at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understood the hon. Member to be raising the whole question of the principle of part-time membership. I have ruled on several occasions that that is already established in the Clause and is not to be questioned. The Amendment is a different matter. I hope that the hon. Member will not seek to debate with the Chair. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have ruled. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr

I understand that I could not answer the hon. Gentleman on the general question whether I was or was not in favour of having part-time members on this board. What I could answer him on is whether I was or was not in favour of having a mandatory limit, either upper or lower, placed upon the part-time membership of the board. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to me with his accustomed care, he will discover that I am arguing that it is extremely difficult for me to make up my mind on the question without having answers to certain other questions which we do not have at present. In other words, we need to know, before we can say whether there should be a mandatory limit on the number of part-time members, what the board will do and what, if there should be part-time members on the board, those part-time members will do.

Mr. Dempsey rose—

Captain Orr

That, I think, is not unreasonable.

Mr. Dempsey

As the hon. Gentleman says that he is against a mandatory upper or lower limit until he knows what the board and the part-time members will do, may I ask whether he is in favour of three part-time members?

Captain Orr

No. I think that the same argument applies. It would be outside the Amendment anyway. It is difficult to come to a conclusion whether there should be a mandatory upper limit to the number of part-time members that the Postmaster-General can appoint to the board until we know what the board will do. That we do not yet know.

Mr. Speed

It might help my hon. Friend's deliberations if I point out that the quorum for the board is to be three—perhaps only 25 per cent. of the total. The activities of the board, whether of its part-time or its full-time members, may not be so important on that basis. The size of the quorum may help to influence him in deciding whether he should ask for two or four part-time members.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) must not let the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) lead him astray. We are discussing whether to make it mandatory that there should be at least two and not more than four part-time members. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South should address himself to the Amendment, which I think he is supporting.

Captain Orr

I would let my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) lead me almost anywhere but not astray, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it would not be his intention ever so to do. I think he is drawing attention to the fact that the question of a quorum is relevant to whether or not we put a mandatory lower or upper limit upon the Postmaster-General's discretion. As the Clause is drafted, we could have a board consisting of wholly part-time members. This is a serious argument, to which I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will address himself. It is difficult to reach a decision about this discretion of the Postmaster-General's without knowing what the functions of the members of the board are to be. Is the board, for example, to be like the B.B.C.'s Board of Governors?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and gallant Member looks amazed, but he must know that further on in the Bill the powers and duties are set out.

Captain Orr

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because I remember very well the discussions in Committee about the powers and duties of the board. But we have not had specific information—and this is probably relevant—about whether or not there is to be a director-general—in other words, whether the board is going to operate like the B.B.C.'s Board of Governors, where there are a chairman and members of the Board in a supervisory capacity but where the running of the organisation is in the hands of the director-general. Is the same system to be applied to the Post Office board?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That should have been discussed some time ago. Clause 6 says: The Post Office shall consist of a chairman … and then specifies certain numbers. The Amendment seeks to impose a minimum number of two part-time members and a maximum number of four. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must address himself to it.

Captain Orr

The Amendment seeks to put a restraint upon the discretion of the Postmaster-General in the appointment of the board. But it is difficult to know whether he should be allowed to have unlimited discretion as to the proportions of part-time and full-time members without knowing precisely how the board is to be managed. I shall not labour the point. I merely ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of what is proposed.

I cannot support the Amendment. I come near to the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that there should be a greater flexibility than the Amendment suggests. I do not like making it mandatory and saying that at least two members of the board should be part-time. I do not see why we should insist upon that. I do not think that my hon. Friend has made out a case for it.

On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that there should be an upper limit. This is not to be a board of dilettantes; it is to be an important functional body, charged with potentially the greatest monopoly in our history, and we should be very careful in framing the legislation that will affect it.

I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to say that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place he will consider whether there ought to be a limit upon the ministerial discretion at the upper end of the scale and that a certain proportion of the members of the board should be full-time. I find myself in a roughly mid-way position in respect of the Amendment. There is a good argument for there being an upper limit, but I cannot support the Amendment as it stands.

It would be useful if the Minister could give us some idea of the salary scales that are expected to be laid down, giving the difference between part-time and full-time members. I see that you are becoming, restless, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I am listening very keenly.

Captain Orr

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker; I knew that you would be. If we are to decide upon the correct proportion between part-time and full-time Members and whether the proportion should be limited by legislation, it may be relevant if we can hear from the Minister whether there will be a great difference in the salary scales involved.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Minister would not be in order in replying to that part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument.

Captain Orr

I am desperately disappointed, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that we would have a fruitful discussion, but if it is to be out of order we shall have to abandon it.

Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will ask his right hon. Friend whether he could consider something along the lines that I have suggested. There are later stages of the Bill to come. It must go to another place, and it must come back. In another place the Government will have a further opportunity to meet some of our points. If we had an undertaking that these points would be considered it would be easier for us to help the Minister resist the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

It is clear from what has been said by hon. Members and by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister can appoint part-time members but that with the Amendment he need not. The question is whether he should appoint them. In my opinion he should. Part-time members can stand back from the day-to-day fray of an enterprise. They do not have a sectionalised vision. They are unlikely to be brought into conflict with each other, as people who are permanently engaged in an industry and are fighting in their own corner may be, and they can hold a benevolent umbrella over the work of those who are there every day.

Most Ministers would agree with that, but it is by no means clear that every Minister will appoint some part-time members. Indeed, if, after the forthcoming political convulsion, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) were appointed Minister, we should have no part-time members; he has just said so. Therefore, the Bill should provide that there should be some part-time members, and a lower limit of two is very reasonable. If there were only one, he would be a sectional interest of his own, on a par with the full-time members, each of whom was primarily concerned with a separate aspect of the business.

Second, whereas most Ministers will wish to appoint one or two part-time members, freedom and flexibility, of the importance of which we have heard so much, will be no good to them if they cannot use them. Pressures might be put on Ministers and the chairman of the Post Office Corporation to have no part-time members. Pressures are already put on boards to this end. I should have thought that a sensible Minister would welcome this shield against something which he would recognise as an undesirable pressure.

We are constructing a very complicated new authority, which is elaborately specified in a Bill consisting of 139 Clauses, 11 Schedules, and 260 pages and costing 22s. It is as if we had specified and built a complicated ship and had produced a great volume saying that the skin of the hull was to be one-eighth of an inch thick, that it was to be welded to the sub-frames and that the engines were to be of an exact horsepower and then, at the end of this extremely detailed specification, on being asked whether any of the top 12 officers were to be sailors, we said, "We do not think it matters and we are certain that it will be all right on the day; the person in charge will do the right thing. Whatever he thinks best will be done, but we do not mind." That must be to our discredit. We cannot produce an elaborately specified new authority without specifying in some small way who are to be the top 12 people to run it.

I see problems with the top limit also. The suggestion is four, which is a reasonable number of part-time directors, provided that the full board of 12 turns up.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that the board need not consist of 12 members and that, as the Clause stands, if the Minister wanted to appoint only six or eight, the four part-timers could well be either a four-sixths majority or a half; namely, four out of eight. There is nothing mandatory about 12.

Mr. Smith

That illustrates a defect in the Amendment. It probably should have been supported by another Amendment either providing that the top limit of four should be reduced if the Minister did not appoint the full board, or probably obliging him—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Such an Amendment might improve the Amendment, but it is not on the Notice Paper. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Amendment which we are considering.

Mr. Smith

I have been treading the narrow plank of order, Mr. Speaker, and I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) to answer his own question later.

The upper limit of four mentioned in the Amendment would be desirable if all 12 members of the board turned up, but we should remember that the quorum is three. It would, therefore, be possible for the affairs of the Post Office to be conducted entirely by part-time members if none of the full-time members turned up. The sort of organisation which is being created must be controlled properly. This question of the board's quorum and many other matters must be clarified, and until that is done I cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. Bruce Campbell (Oldham, West)

It is clear that the Clause as drafted enables the Minister to appoint a board composed entirely of part-time members. While I accept that part-timers may have a valuable contribution to make in this capacity, we must have a competent board. How much time will part-time members give. Will it be one hour a day, one day a week or one day a year? It would be unfortunate if the Post Office were to be managed entirely by people who gave so little of their time to it.

It is important that the day-to-day business of the Post Office is managed by full-time members. Considering the multifarious activities of this organisation—postal, telephone, telegraph, Savings Bank services and so on—fulltime members must take responsibility, although I appreciate that valuable service could be obtained from part-time people. There must, therefore, be a strict upper limit.

The right hon. Gentleman explained the figures he had in mind when he said that those mentioned in the Amendment—a lower limit of two and an upper limit of four—were roughly those whom he would employ if he were appointing members today. The point is that he may not be the Minister responsible then, and it is important to write into the Bill words which will make it plain that at any rate the preponderance of the board will lie with full-time members.

The important thing is to have an upper limit. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that, in a sense, it is a little unfortunate that the Amendment invites us to accept a lower limit as well. But if only to get the upper limit I would also accept the lower limit, because without such an Amendment the Clause is left in a very dangerous state.

Sir Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I am opposed to the Amendment, because it seems to me to take away the very desirable degree of flexibility there is in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Alison

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) should take that view, because I think that, without the Amendment, there is a bit too much flexibility in the Clause; that is to say, it seems possible for the Postmaster-General to secure a board on which there are not any part-time members at all. That would be a great disadvantage.

I am a great believer in the power that a fresh injection of outside experience and interests often has to revolutionise the practice and performance of an undertaking. The Postmaster-General will not be unaware of the extraordinary effect of the arrival in the professional railway world of an industrial chemist, Lord Beeching, who, for the first time, imported a wider perspective and a new kind of discipline into the administration of that great undertaking—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Was Lord Beeching part-time? I thought that he was full-time. He certainly got a full-time salary.

Mr. Alison

The principle applies in part to those who are part time. The principle is valid in part measure with part-time appointments. Another example is provided in electronics, where a top economist, Arnold Weinstock, revolutionised the accountancy side of a great corporation. It must be valid that part-timers have an important contribution to make.

I am not unaware of the interest earlier shown by the Postmaster-General himself in seeking to write into the Bill certain disciplines, which he went so far as to spell out. I believe, for example, in the necessity of having directors or members of a board who have some experience in industrial affairs, or in commercial affairs, or in professional or financial matters, or in pure or applied science, or in politics, economics, technology and administration. The Postmaster General showed quite a remarkable sensitivity, although, perhaps, too much sense of embroidery, in seeking then to demonstrate the relevance of these extraneous disciplines to the operations and administration of the Post Office.

Mr. John Smith

Would my hon. Friend call politics a discipline?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Alison

Perhaps the discipline of politics is getting somewhat frayed at the edges in certain parts of the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is talking about embroidery. He must come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Alison

At your behest, Mr. Speaker, I must return to the Amendment from the intervention. The Postmaster-General has been at some pains to point out the relevance of disciplines outside that of the pure professional work of the Post Office as one of the essential ingredients for making the future board of the Corporation as efficient and forward-looking as it could be. One of the possible results of ruling out part-time members of the board would be that although appointments may be made from those who up to that time were persons with wide experience of, … industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration", if they are forced to become full-time members the experience that they brought from those other fields of discipline will progressively become more and more remote and more and more out of date. It will recede into the background as the Needles recede behind the stern of the "Queen Elizabeth".

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to make it mandatory that at least two and not more than four shall be part-time members.

Mr. Alison

If unamended, the Clause would make it possible for part-time members from these professional backgrounds to be excluded at the mere whim of the Postmaster-General. There would be no obligation on him to have such part-time members. It is no adequate argument to say that those who are appointed full-time to the board may come from such disciplines as I have mentioned, because the experience they bring with them will become increasingly remote.

In a profession such as medicine an ordinary general practitioner has to spend an enormous amount of time, even though he is fully engaged in medical work, to keep up with the latest developments in his discipline. He has to keep fully in touch with all that goes on in hospital or medical practice and it is difficult for him to keep up with all the developments in the discipline. How much more difficult would it be for a chemist seconded to the Post Office Corporation full-time, or an accountant or research scientist, or any other category which the Postmaster-General spelled out, to keep up with the disciplines of the world from which they have come. There must be a repeated coming and going of the insights and experiences and values of other fields of discipline which we seek to thread into the skein of the Post Office.

Mr. Speed

Perhaps my hon. Friend should turn his mind to the fact that the Minister may within the powers of discretion appoint not more than six members. If the Amendment were accepted he could appoint four of those six as full-time members. If it were not accepted, and the number of part-time members were left to the Minister's discretion, then if two thirds were part-time members there would be such a storm that he would have to bow to it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on Report stage. The hon. Member has nearly exhausted his right to speak by the length of his intervention.

Mr. Alison

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) fell short of exhaustion, because the point he made is important. It is a matter of highest ideology and in a sense of conceptual debate. If the Bill as amended imposed a disproportionate number of part-timers it would be erring in the right direction. There is need to lace into the directorship of the Post Office repeated breaths of fresh air from other disciplines. It is of crucial importance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

indicated dissent.

Mr. Alison

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I appreciate his position, but even he, with his repeated criticisms of the professional people who run the nationalised industries, will feel that they often get bogged down in narrow activities with too little awareness of the outside interests affected.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

One of the other advantages of a part-timer is that he does not derive all his income from one occupation and therefore has greater independence in the advice he offers.

Mr. Alison

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for pointing that out. It is certainly an additional reason for including part-time members as a de jure requirement. I hope that he will have the opportunity to develop that case at some length, because it underlines the importance not only of bringing in external disciplines to the board but also the financial independence which ensures that the views from outside can be pressed home.

I hope that the Post Office will have a framework of administration so that it will always be certain of having the insidious influence of a Beeching, a Weinstock, or even of someone like my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who would be able, as a part-time member, to bring the whole experience of the City into the Post Office. The Amendment would at least ensure some part-time members on the board and I hope that we shall not find ourselves in the position of having a board whose professional directors are becoming more and more isolated in narrow detail and a specifically limited range of activities, becoming more and more out of touch with developments in such things as electronics, communications and transportation and all other activities affecting the efficiency and output of the postal services, so that the Post Office fails to rise to the heights that it could if outside experience were applied to it.

Mr. Speed

I find myself in considerable difficulty because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I am not enamoured of the argument that having two or four part-time members of the board would necessarily improve the running of the Post Office. I shall not stray beyond the rules of order, because I know that this point is something we can explore later. Under subsection (2) we may be talking in terms of six members of the board, including, if we allow discretion to the Postmaster-General, two or three part-time members. On the other hand, we may be talking of 12 members, and there is an argument for having at any rate two part-timers out of a total membership of 12.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) referred to Lord Beeching and others and the great wisdom which such members could bring as part-timers to the Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) suggested that, if a member of the board were not wholly dependent on the Post Office for his income, it would be beneficial. On the other hand, if a member were dependent for the whole of his income on the Post Office, that would be an incentive to his working to ensure that the Post Office made a profit.

On balance, we should probably be throwing out the baby with the bath water in accepting the Amendment. We are committing ourselves to at least two, which may be two out of six, and at most four, which may be four out of 12—taking both sides of the possible totals involved.

I hope I shall not stray out of order if I bring in the question of the quorum. It is relevant if the quorum of the board is three. If the Amendment is accepted—or even under the Minister's dispensation if it is not—it would be possible for the quorum of the board to be made up of part-time members only, and I am not sure that one would necessarily regard that as a happy state of affairs.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

A jolly good idea.

Mr. Speed

I hear my hon. Friend say that, but I consider that it would be far from a good idea.

We cannot amend the Amendment. For my part, I should like an Amendment to prevent the eight, ten or 12—whatever be the number—members of the board all being appointed part-time at ministerial discretion. But, as we found earlier when considering the whole Clause at a time when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker—it is capable of several different interpretations by the Clerks and by right hon. and hon. Members. At the moment, it seems that matters are left too much to ministerial discretion in the number of members of the board and, therefore, the number of part-time members as well. I hope that in another place the Clause may be tightened up—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am in the Chair now. We are not discussing the Clause. We are discussing the Amendment.

Mr. Speed

But I am concerned, in the context of the Amendment, lest we import into the Clause undesirable restrictions on the Minister's flexibility so that we could find ourselves with a disproportionate number of part-time members as against full-time members of the board. Therefore, unless I hear from my hon. Friends further and more cogent arguments than I have heard so far, I shall be inclined to join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). He may have made up his mind already. I am not at present inclined to support the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the House indulged in an interesting numbers game in which we divided the figure 12 into twos and fours, with varying results, for some time. Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has considerably raised the level of debate. I think that I find myself somewhere between his more philosophical contemplations and the computer-mindedness of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

There is one crucial difficulty on which I should value your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding further. The House is being asked to decide what proportion of the board shall consist of part-time members, but we are asked to make that decision without knowing what the board's powers are to be.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have dealt with that already. The best way to obtain Mr. Speaker's advice is by going out of order and being called back to order, but I particularly ruled on the specific question during an earlier speech. The powers of the board are set out in a later Clause. We may not discuss that now. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he does not know, that we are discussing whether a statutory obligation shall be laid upon the Post Office that at least two and not more than four members of the board shall be part-time members.

Mr. Griffiths

I understand and accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to make the point in passing that it is difficult to know how many men one needs in a battalion unless one knows the objective which it has to take.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not questioning the truth of what the hon. Gentleman says, but being true does not necessarily make it in order.

Mr. Griffiths

I am much obliged, Sir. If the Clause is passed as it stands, the Minister will have absolute discretion to appoint to the board as many part-time members as he likes. He could appoint 12 such members, so that the board was a purely part-time board. If the Amendment is passed, it will be mandatory upon him to appoint between two and four members who are part-time. That has one advantage from my point of view, in that it allows the House of Commons to lay down the nature and composition of the board, rather than leave it to the absolute discretion of the Minister.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Proceedings on the Post Office Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McCann.]

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 175.

Division No. 191.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Garrett, W. E.	Marks, Kenneth
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Ginsburg, David	Marquand, David
Alldritt, Walter	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Anderson, Donald	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mayhew, Christopher
Archer, Peter	Greenwood, Rt, Hn. Anthony	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mendelson, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mikardo, Ian
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Millan, Bruce
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Barnett, Joel	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Baxter, William	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Molloy, William
Beaney, Alan	Hamling, William	Morgan, Elystan, (Cardiganshire)
Bence, Cyril	Harper, Joseph	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Moyle, Roland
Binns, John	Haseidine, Norman	Murray, Albert
Bishop, E. s.	Hazell, Bert	Neal, Harold
Blackburn, F.	Henig, Stanley	Newens, Stan
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Norwood, Christopher
Booth, Albert	Hobden, Dennis	Oakes, Gordon
Boston, Terence	Horner, John	Ogden, Eric
Boyden, James	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	O'Malley, Brian
Bradley, Tom	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Oram, Albert E.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Howie, W.	Orbach, Maurice
Brooks, Edwin	Hoy, James	Orme, Stanley
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Huckfield, Leslie	Oswald, Thomas
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hunter, Adam	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Coe, Denis	Hynd, John	Palmer, Arthur
Coleman, Donald	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Park, Trevor
Conlan, Bernard	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Pavitt, Laurence
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pentland, Norman
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Judd, Frank	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Kelley, Richard	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Kenyon, Clifford	Price, William (Rugby)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Probert, Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Rankin, John
Delargy, Hugh	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Rees, Merlyn
Dell, Edmund	Lawson, George	Richard, Ivor
Dempsey, James	Leadbitter, Ted	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dewar, Donald	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Dickens, James	Lee, John (Reading)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dobson, Ray	Lestor, Miss Joan	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Driberg, Tom	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Roebuck, Roy
Dunn, James A.	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dunnett, Jack	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Rose, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lomas, Kenneth	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Loughlin, Charles	Rowlands, E.
Eadie, Alex	Luard, Evan	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Ellis, John	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Sheldon, Robert
English, Michael	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Ennals, David	MacDermot, Niall	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Ensor, David	Macdonald, A. H.	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	McGuire, Michael	Silverman, Julius
Fernyhough, E.	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Slater, Joseph
Finch, Harold	Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)	Spriggs, Leslie
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Istington, E.)	Mackie, John	Steele Thomas (Dunbartonshire W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackintosh, John P.	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Foley, Maurice	Maclennan, Robert	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Taverne, Dick
Ford, Ben	MacPherson, Malcolm	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Thornton, Ernest
Fowler, Gerry	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Tinn James
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tuck, Raphael
Freeson, Reginald	Manuel, Archie	Urwin, T. W.
Varley, Eric G.	Whitaker, Ben	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	White, Mrs. Eirene	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Wilkins, W. A.	Winnick, David
Wallace, George	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Watkins, David Consett)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	Woof, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Weitzman, David	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)	Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
		Mr. John McCann.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Pardoe, John
Astor, John	Hawkins, Paul	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Hay, John	Percival, Ian
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Peyton, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Higgins, Terence L.	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Balniel, Lord	Hiley, Joseph	Pink, R. Bonner
Batsford, Brian	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pounder, Rafton
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Holland, Philip	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hornby, Richard	Prior, J. M. L.
Bessell, Peter	Hunt, John	Pym, Francis
Black, Sir Cyril	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Blaker, Peter	Iremonger, T. L.	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Body, Richard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Braine, Bernard	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Jopling, Michael	Ridsdale, Julian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Kershaw, Anthony	Royle, Anthony
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Bullus, Sir Eric	Kitson, Timothy	Scott, Nicholas
Burden, F. A.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Scott-Hopkins, James
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Lambton, Viscount	Sharples, Richard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Carlisle, Mark	Lane, David	Silvester, Frederick
Chichester-Clark, R.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Clegg, Walter	Longden, Gilbert	Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert	MacArthur, Ian	Stainton, Keith
Cordle, John	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Costain, A. P.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	McMaster, Stanley	Summers, Sir Spencer
Crouch, David	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Tapsell, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dalkeith, Earl of	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (Now Forest)	Temple, John M.
Dance, James	Marten, Neil	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry	Maude, Angus	Tunton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Mawby, Ray	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Doughty Charles	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Waddington, David
Drayson, G. B.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)
Eden, Sir John	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Eyre, Reginald	Miscampbell, Norman	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Farr, John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Walters, Dennis
Fisher, Nigel	Munro, Hector	Ward, Dame Irene
Foster, Sir John	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Weatherill, Bernard
Fraser, Rt Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Whitelaw Rt. Hn. William
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wiggin, A. W.
Glover, Sir Douglas	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Goodhew, Victor	Murton, Oscar	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gower, Raymond	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, Anthony	Heave, Airey	Woodnutt, Mark
Grant-Ferris, R.	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Worsley, Marcus
Grieve, Percy	Onslow, Cranley
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Gurden, Harold	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Mr. Jasper More.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Page, Graham (Crosby)

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I was putting to the House the points of principle on which I support the Amendment. The first point of principle is that by inserting the words in the Amendment we should be limiting the discretion of the Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths

I am in favour of limiting the discretion of the Minister in the selection of people to serve on the board. It is right that Parliament, so far as possible, should control the Minister's discretion in this matter, and the Amendment would go to that point of principle by specifying in advance and by the will of this House the type of board that should be appointed to look after the affairs of this industry.

My second point of principle is that, like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I am in favour of having part-time members on the board. It must be obligatory on the Minister to have a number of part-time members. I need not detain the House with the reasons; they are self-evident. A board which is to do its job satisfactorily must be able to obtain from outside the limited horizons of the Post Office the skills, disciplines and independence of part-time members who will be able to give wise counsel and guidance to the professional Post Office people who, with the greatest respect, have not always made the best decisions. I maintain as a matter of principle that the House should lay it upon the Minister that there should be an obligatory number of part-time members. They can do nothing but good for the Post Office and for the consumer of Post Office services.

10.15 p.m.

As soon as one has made those two important points of principle, one comes to the crucial matters in this Amendment. One must answer two questions. First, how many part-time members ought there to be? Secondly, what proportion should this number of part-time members bear to the board as a whole?

These two questions would appear to be the same, but in fact they are not. The one important difference between them is that we do not as yet know, until the Minister has decided, of how many members the board shall consist. If he decides under the Clause to appoint 12 members, the proportion of part-time members to the 12 members will be a different proportion than if he, in his discretion, decides to appoint only nine or perhaps, as he may appoint, only six.

This is an important point, and goes to two matters. First of all, it goes to the question of what shall constitute a majority of the board. One must presume that a majority of the board will take some very important decisions about the whole postal service. Therefore, the question of how one arrives at a majority within this powerful board is of crucial importance. Secondly, there is the question of a quorum. A quorum is not the same thing as a majority since a quorum permits the board to meet at all, and a majority determines what it shall decide.

I wish to ventilate both the matters of a quorum and of a majority. By the Amendment one has a choice between a minimum of two and a maximum of four part-time members who will be obligatorily appointed by the Minister. But since also there will be what one may call a moveable board of somewhere between 12 and six, we do not know whether a proportion of that number of either two or four part-timers to the complex question of the board as a whole makes for different proportions.

Mr. Alison

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the proportion which part-time members should bear to full-time members, would he care to consider whether the proportion which subsists in the directorship of the Bank of England, in which out of a court of 20 four are full-time and the other 16 part-time, might be an appropriate proportion to have?

Mr. Griffiths

I feel that I should be trespassing on the indulgence of the House if I were to pursue that since my ignorance of the Bank of England is almost total.

Because of this relationship between the number of part-time members which is suggested and our ignorance of the size of the board of which it will constitute part, we are confronted with nothing more nor less than a whole series of mathematical permutations and combinations which will bear on the decision-making machinery of this important board. I shall illustrate three possible combinations which can arise.

Mr. Speaker

I am not too interested in the permutations and combinations which can exist. We are discussing whether the minimum number of part-time members of the board which the Minister must appoint shall be two and the maximum four.

Mr. Griffiths

The point which I was endeavouring to make was that, before we make a decision whether it should be two or four, as we on this side are proposing, we must be able to see what proportion that two or four will bear to the board. Otherwise, we shall not know how a decision is reached by a majority.

Mr. Speaker

May I help the hon. Gentleman? We are not deciding whither it shall be two or four. We are deciding whether it shall not be less than two nor more than four.

Mr. Griffiths

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Let us suppose that the Minister appoints a board of six persons. If three of them are part-timers, with more than two and not less than four, it will be possible for them to prevent decisions being made by the six members whom the Minister has appointed.

To take another example, supposing the Minister were to appoint eight members. If he appointed, let us say, five part-timers, they could block anything. I cannot believe that it is the wish of this House to create a situation where five part-timers could block any decision made by all the members appointed by the Minister. That is why we have put on the upper limit of four. We are trying to prevent five part-timers having a majority on a board of only eight, if that is the number which, in the event, the right hon. Gentleman decides to appoint.

Let us suppose that he uses his full discretion and appoints 12, which I gather is his present intention. What number of part-timers will appropriately represent the interests of the customers and the general interests of the laity, if I may use that description to separate most of us from the more divine beings who run the Post Office board? Let us suppose that, of the 12, he were to appoint one part-time member. He, poor fellow, would be exceptionally lonely, and I cannot believe that the House or the pubic would feel that that was a satisfactory number to appoint. That is why we say two or more. We are not satisfied that there should be only one.

There is a special difficulty about being one part-time member on a board of 12. It is not simply that one is isolated. Indexed, it is the opposite. Because he would be the only part-time member, constantly he would be endowed with expert knowledge by the 11 professionals, who would always suppose that his view of what should be done had a special authority and excellence. I am sure that the House would not wish that to be the position.

We came to the conclusion that five would be too many, because occasionally the five could block the eight, if the Minister decided to appoint only eight. If he appointed six, they would have a five-sixths blocking majority and could block anything. We also decided that one was too few. Therefore, having considered the matter carefully, we come to the Minister with what must seem—

Mr. Ridley

Why did not my hon. Friend draft the Amendment to say,"… not less than one-sixth but not more than one-third"?

Mr. Speaker

Order. With all the good will in the world, at this stage we cannot discuss the Amendment which might have been drafted.

Mr. Griffiths

I hasten to point out that I had nothing to do with the drafting of the Amendment. Having listened to the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, I am convinced that what they seek to do here is right. I am making my speech after the House of Commons has done its duty and persuaded me of the wisdom of what my hon. Friends are seeking to do.

What is at issue here is that five would be too many, one would be too few, and, therefore, my hon. Friends are presenting the Minister with what must seem to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the great British public as a range of choice. He may have two, three or four part-time Members.

Mr. Clegg

I suggest that he might do it like the pools and perm two from four.

Mr. Griffiths

My ignorance of the pools is almost as great as my ignorance of the Bank of England, so I will not pursue that point.

Surely, the Minister, far from sitting on the Front Bench opposite and stubbornly resisting the good sense of my hon. Friends' Amendment, would be wise to get up and thank this side of the House for having provided him with some choice. I realise that his party does not believe in choice, but we do. We are offering him a choice of how many he will appoint to this board.

The heart of the matter is that the Post Office board will be making a large number of important decisions for every citizen of this country. Therefore, it is crucial that the board should have representatives of the public who bring in from other walks of life special skills and knowledge and who, financially, are not totally beholden to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to see on all these boards, and on this one in particular, not fewer than two and not more than four people whose incomes derive from some source other than the Post Office. Only then can we be sure that they have independence and can say to the Postmaster-General, "No, you are wrong here." If he dismisses them they will not be like the payroll vote opposite—scared stiff of ever disagreeing with their Whips.

Hon. Members

Where are they?

Mr. Griffiths

They will stand up to the Minister because they will have some independent financial power behind them. Perhaps I should not press that point too far, because they are a poor lot. But we must have the principle laid down in the Bill that there shall be part-time members. I wish the Postmaster-General would get up and say, "Yes, we want these part-time members. I am extremely grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite who

have given me this opportunity to have them."

Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ian Gilmour

(seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not unusual for a Government Whip to move the Closure before the Opposition Front Bench has had an opportunity to reply?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can move the Closure whenever he cares to do so. It is a matter for the Government or any hon. Member. Acceptance of the matter is for the Chair. That is the Chair's Ruling.

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove)

(seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusion which we have at the moment, may I ask whether we could send for the Government Chief Whip to clear up this matter?

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no confusion, except in the hon. Member's mind.

The House having divided: Ayes 224, Noes 172.

Division No. 192.]	AYES	[10. 26 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Freeson, Reginald
Alldritt, Walter	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Garrett, W. E.
Anderson, Donald	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Ginsburg, David
Archer, Peter	Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Delargy, Hugh	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Dell, Edmund	Grey, Charles (Durham)
Barnett, Joel	Dempsey, James	Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Baxter, William	Dewar, Donald	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Beaney, Alan	Dickens, James	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Dobson, Ray	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bidwell, Sydney	Driberg, Tom	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Binns, John	Dunn, James A.	Harmling, William
Bishop, E. S.	Dunnett, Jack	Harper, Joseph
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Booth, Albert	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Boston, Terence		Haseldine, Norman
Boyden, James	Eadie, Alex	Hattersley, Roy
Bradley, Tom	Ellis, John	Hazell, Bert
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	English, Michael	Henig, Stanley
Brooks, Edwin	Ennals, David	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Ensor, David	Hobden, Dennis
Buchan, Norman	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Horner, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Fernyhough, E.	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Finch, Harold	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Coe, Denis	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Howie, W.
Coleman, Donald	Foley, Maurice	Hoy, James
Conlan, Bernard	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Huckfield, Leslie
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Ford, Ben	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Forrester, John	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Crawshaw, Richard	Fowler, Gerry	Hynd, John
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Roebuck, Roy
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Mayhew, Christopher	Rose, Paul
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Rose, Rt. Hn. William
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Mendelson, John	Rowlands, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Mikardo, Ian	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Millen, Bruce	Sheldon, Robert
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Judd, Frank	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Kelley, Richard	Molloy, William	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Kenyon, Clifford	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Silverman, Julius
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Skeffington, Arthur
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Slater, Joseph
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Moyle, Roland	Spriggs, Leslie
Lawson, George	Murray, Albert	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted		Taverne, Dick
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Neal, Harold	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, John (Reading)	Newens, Stan	Thornton, Ernest
Lestor, Miss Joan	Norwood, Christopher	Tinn, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Oakes, Gordon	Urwin, T. W.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Ogden, Eric	Varley, Eric G.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	O'Malley, Brian	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lomas, Kenneth	Orem, Albert E.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Loughlin, Charles	Orme, Stanley	Wallace, George
Luard, Evan	Oswald, Thomas	Watkins, David (Consett)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Wellbeloved, James
McCann, John	Paget, R. T.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
MacDermot, Niall	Palmer, Arthur	Whitaker, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.	Park, Trevor	White, Mrs. Eirene
	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Willkins, W. A.
McGuire, Michael	Pavitt, Laurence	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mackie, John	Pentland, Norman	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mackintosh, John P.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Maclennan, Robert	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Price, William (Rugby)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
MacPherson, Malcolm	Probert, Arthur	Winnick, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Rees, Merlyn	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Richard, Ivor	Woof, Robert
Mallaliue, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Manuel, Archie	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Marks, Kenneth	Robertson, John (Paisley)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Marquand, David	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
		Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Iremonger, T. L.
Astor, John	Doughty, Charles	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Drayson, G. B.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Awdry, Daniel	Eden, Sir John	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Jopling, Michael
Balniel, Lord	Emery, Peter	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Batsford, Brian	Eyre, Reginald	Kerby, Capt. Henry
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Farr, John	Kershaw, Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Fisher, Nigel	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Bessell, Peter	Foster, Sir John	Kitson, Timothy
Biggs-Davison, John	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Black, Sir Cyril	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Lambton, Viscount
Blaker, Peter	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Body Richard	Glover, Sir Douglas	Lane, David
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Goodhew, Victor	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Cower, Raymond	Longden, Gilbert
Braine, Bernard	Grant-Ferris, R.	MacArthur, Ian
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Gresham Cooke, R.	Mackenzie, Alesdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Grieve, Percy	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	McMaster, Stanley
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Gurden, Harold	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Burden, F. A.	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Marten, Neil
Carlisle, Mark	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Maude, Angus
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hawkins, Paul	Mawby, Ray
Clegg walter	Hay, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cooke, Robert	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Cordle, John	Higgins, Terence L.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Crouch, David	Hiley, Joseph	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Currie, G. B. H.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Miscampbell, Norman
Dalkeith, Earl of	Holland, Philip	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Dance, James	Hornby, Richard	Monro, Hector
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hunt, John	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Pym, Francis	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Murton, Oscar	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Waddington, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Neave, Airey	Ridsdale, Julian	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek
	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Walters, Dennis
Onslow, Cranley	Royle, Anthony	Ward, Dame Irene
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Russell, Sir Ronald	Weatherill, Bernard
Osborn, John (Hallam)	Scott, Nicholas	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Sharples, Richard	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William
Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Wiggin, A. W.
Pardoe, John	Silvester, Frederick	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Smith, John (London & W'minster)	Winstanley, Dr, M. P.
Percival, Ian	Speed, Keith	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Peyton, John	Stainton, Keith	Woodnutt, Mark
Pike, Miss Mervyn	Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Worsley, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Pounder, Rafton	Summers, Sir Spencer	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Tapsell, Peter	Mr. Jasper More and
Prior, J. M. L.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Mr. Anthony Grant.

Question put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Stonehouse

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Speaker

It is suggested that we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 5, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 8.

Mr. Stonehouse

During our debates I have been chided by Members of the Standing Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), for the fact that I had failed to respond to some of their suggestions. I am glad to say that I have been persuaded by some of the observations of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who we regret could not be with us tonight because he has had to go on a visit abroad, and the hon. and gallant Member for Down. South (Captain Orr), who suggested in Committee that I should look at the need for qualifications for membership of the board.

I have considered the suggestion but, on reflection, I believe that it is not necessary to spell out in such detail the qualifications as they appear in subsection (4). I take it that I will have the agreement of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), whose Amendment No. 15 would delete the qualifications appearing at the end of the subsection.

The Clause really means that it is within the Minister's discretion whom he appoints to the board. The Minister will determine which individuals have the qualifications set out in the subsection and which are, in effect, all-embracing. There is hardly an individual in the country who could not be construed as being within the definition of the subsection. For these reasons it would be better sense to delete the subsection altogether and make it clear that it is within the Minister's discretion whom he should appoint.

I wish to make it clear, particularly for the information of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central, who raised the point—he indicated that, somehow, the withdrawal of the subsection implied a change of mind on the part of the Minister in regard to workers' participation in the Post Office and the selection of members of the Post Office staff for nomination to the board—that there has been no change of mind, neither on my part nor on the part of my colleagues. We are in no way implying that by withdrawing the subsection we are changing our attitude towards the selection of qualified individuals for appointment to the board.

The Amendment will, by deleting the subsection, improve the Bill; and it therefore follows that Amendment No. 15 is not required.

Mr. Peyton

I am not sure why I have suddenly been saluted as the "hon. and gallant Gentleman" by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had left any trace of such a distinction a long time ago with the residue of my military career in a prison camp. However, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kindness.

The Amendment is indeed the beginning of light, of a new dawn, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. I accept that there has been no change of substance in his mind, but he has obviously coaxed and kicked his Department and the Parliamentary draftsmen into paying a passing salute to the English language. This reverse of casting pearls, so to speak, should be recorded for all time. The subsection which we are deleting reads: The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience"— what a strange phrase and to have shown capacity in"— another surprising comment matters concerning services which, under this Part of this Act, the Post Office has power to provide …". 10.45 p.m.

Such was my innate modesty that in approaching this Clause I did not think it worth while the effort to try to uproot this "heffalump" of horror squatting in yet another legislative Measure. I suggested that we should leave out: the Post Office have power to provide, industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration or the organisation of workers. There is not a single sacred cow in all our constellation—[Laughter.] That is the wrong word. There is not a single sacred cow in all the hierarchy that has been omitted or has grounds for complaint.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

My hon. Friend is in error. Sociology is not mentioned.

Mr. Peyton

I do not accept that correction. Sociology, at least in the person of most of its students, remains a cow which has not yet become sacred. The Parliamentary draftsman, following the bidding of his masters, has touched his hat to all the horrors in case he should be taken to have offended some sacred cow of unusual sensitivity.

One must feel deeply grateful to the Postmaster-General for having kicked this "heffalump" where it hurts and removed it. It was a horrid, monstrous growth. I am not saying that overnight the Bill will become a thing of beauty. That is impossible because it is still studded with phrases such as "subsidiary to its". One will not be able to call it a Helen of Troy of the Statute Book. Nevertheless, without this bit it will be a great deal better.

Despite the fact that the Government Whips cruelly curtailed a most interesting debate on the last Amendment, it would be unkind to prolong discussion of this Amendment and I must make some attempt to overcome my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman went further than my request. On behalf of that much mutilated thing the English language, the favoured victim of Whitehall so often tortured here, I thank the Postmaster-General.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is unduly generous to the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman brutally curtailed a very interesting debate before anyone from the Opposition Front Bench had spoken, which did not show that he was amenable to reason. My hon. Friend must be in one of his moods when he feels that he has had such a triumph that he removes the vitriol and becomes complimentary to the Government Front Bench.

The Minister need not be congratulated for taking out the subsection. In Bill after Bill we deal with this sort of thing and say, "Take it out of the Bill. It does not mean anything." That is all we are doing tonight. We are not altering the Minister's powers. If anything we are increasing them.

Whatever reduced Minister represents the Post Office in the House in the future, he will be severely criticised from both sides of the House if he makes a political appointment. I could speak for a long time on what is meant by "industrial", even longer on what is meant by "commercial", and longer still on what is meant by "professional". I could also speak for a long time on "financial matters" and "pure or applied science". If we wanted to filibuster we could keep the House sitting all night.

I should like the Minister to make it clear that in removing "politics" he has it very clearly in his mind that no appointment under the Clause will be made on political grounds. The House has a right to expect this, and I hope that my hon. Friend who replies for this side of the House will make it clear that we shall be governed by the same reasoning. I can see many reasons for appointing people on industrial, commercial, professional or even social grounds. The one reason I cannot see for appointing them is on political grounds.

The right hon. Gentleman is only a very transient person in the great orbit of the Post Office. I hope that he will make it quite clear that as a result of his removing the subsection his officials will not advise his successors to appoint anybody to these positions on political grounds. I cannot think of anything more disastrous than trying to run a public corporation governed by commercial criteria when the Minister concerned has the right to find the most stupid, reactionary, ignorant, party hack on either side of the House and say, "We should like to reward the hon. Member, and therefore we shall make him a director of the Post Office". I can think of nothing worse for the efficiency or good running of our organisations.

Therefore, I am on a matter of some substance, and I am not being funny when I say that the Minister should make it clear to the House that his advisers in the Post Office will not advise any Government that an appointment to this commercial organisation will be made not on the grounds of a person's commercial knowledge but of his political services. We are on a fundamental issue. We are divorcing the Post Office from day-to-day Parliamentary control and trying to turn it into an efficient commercial organisation. We have argued on previous Amendments the amount of control the House will have over these activities. The House has decided, in its wisdom, that it will have little control, and it thus becomes an overriding responsibility for the House to ensure that the board is not appointed with any idea of "jobs for the boys" but on the most strict commercial assessment of the ability and efficiency that individuals can bring to the new Post Office organisation.

The fact that the Postmaster-General accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment which was pressed in Committee indicated that his arguments convinced the Postmaster-General of the rightness of taking this from the Bill. Having taken it from the Bill, a political atmosphere may still rule in the appointment of people in the Post Office or may remain in control of the Post Office board. In divorcing the Post Office from Parliamentary control, the House must try to ensure that we produce what we have never yet succeeded in producing, a worthwhile form of public corporation. The result in the past has always been that we criticised every public corporation whenever we have had the opportunity. There is still too much push and pull of politics in the public corporations and the Postmaster-General now has an opportunity to make it crystal clear that in Post Office thinking and in the advice he will give to his officials there will be no suspicion that a person who is up for appointment to a position, whether full or part time, will be out because he has political connotations. It may be said that the Conservative Party will be in power—and, in spite of what was said on a public platform about people going on, I do not know whether they are going on. It might not be long before a Conservative Government is appointing a board. I would oppose political interests or activities just as much if Conservatives were appointing those to run the organisation. It is about the largest organisation in the country and the only way to run it efficiently is to get the most ruthless and commercial industrial brains to do it.

If the appointment of these people were made by the present Administration, I should view with much suspicion the appointment of trade unionists or party members reaching retirement age, simply to give a general secretary a nice job. There must be no political content in such appointments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that his advice is that there will be no taint of political jobbery in appointing anyone.

11 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said he would only speak for a couple of minutes and went on for 25. I too will not speak for long.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Lewis

Let me get a couple of sentences out. The hon. Member talked about political patronage. I have raised this issue on other Amendments and am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not raise it previously. I have in mind—

Sir D. Glover

It is unfair for the hon. Member to say that I did not raise it. I tried to, but the Government moved the Closure.

Mr. Lewis

One thing that I cannot be accused of is failing to give way. I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Onslow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis

No.

Mr. Onslow

On a point of order. When the hon. Gentleman says that he only intends to make a brief speech, would it not be of great assistance to other hon. Members who desire to speak to know what he means so that we can consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis

I thought that it would not be a point of order too. I was saying that I wished that the hon. Gentleman had raised this previously. I was referring particularly to those dismal, dark, dreary days when the Tories were in power. They did exactly what I am complaining of now. We had as Chairman of the I.T.A. the noble Lord the "Radio Doctor".—[An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Hill."]—Yes, but he is better known as the "Radio Doctor". He was appointed by a Tory Government. Being an ex-Tory Minister, I suppose that he was non-political. This Government made the same mistake as the Tories, and then did some switching. Lord Hill went from the I.T.A. to the B.B.C. and, to find a job for an ex-Chief Whip, Lord Aylestone took over from Lord Hill. My only regret is that there was not a little more political patronage, because recently there was a switch in Chief Whip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help me by saying how he is relating his remarks to the Amendment?

Mr. Lewis

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Gentlemen opposite will keep quiet for a few moments. The Amendment is to leave out Clause 6(4) which as it stands would give power to the Minister to appoint an ex-Chief Whip to the board, or as chairman. The hon. Member went through a long list of political patronage and said that he would not like this to happen in the future. I explained that it had happened in the past both under a Tory Government and, I regret to say, under this Government. If the subsection is omitted, the ex-Chief Whip may not get the appointment which I should like him to get. I am supporting the hon. Gentleman; I should not like the ex-Chief Whip to be given political patronage, and that is one reason why the subsection should be left out.

If the subsection is left out, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk says, we may get away from political patronage. If it remains in the Bill, it will be open to the Minister to appoint as chairman of the board an ex-Chief Whip, an ex-Minister or a Tory ex-Minister.

Mr. George Wallace (Norwich, North): rose—

Mr. Lewis

The Chairman of the Race Relations Board is the ex-Member for a Liberal constituency—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Lewis

If there is to be political patronage, I hope that it will not extend to the Liberal Party. It is bad enough having ex-Ministers, either Tory or Labour, but it is even worse that the former Member for Torrington, Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, should be appointed Chairman of the Race Relations Board, at 8 guineas a day, with tax-free expenses.

Mr. Clegg

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the Horserace Betting Levy Board?

Mr. Lewis

I wish the hon. Gentleman opposite would not read my notes and make my points before I reach them. The Horserace Betting Levy Board must take its place behind the rails until the horse is ready to start. I have another example which comes before that, and that is the Chairman of the National Coal Board, who, I think, has not all the qualifications mentioned in the subsection. He was appointed by the previous Tory Government. This is a man who claims that he would make a better Prime Minister than the one we have.

Mr. Wallace

On a point of order. With the greatest respect to you, Sir, and to the House, I seem to remember hearing this speech in many previous debates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I will endeavour to keep the hon. Gentleman to the point.

Mr. Lewis

My hon. Friend might be nominated for the job. If he gets it he will deserve it; he will know how to go about it.

Mr. Wallace

On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the remark made by my hon. Friend—and I put that in quotes—is an outrageous attack on an individual, who probably has not had so much to say in this debate, but who did his work in Committee. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis

I will repeat that my hon. Friend may be one of those who might have this particular job. He might be considered for it. If he does not want that job, I will withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman really is getting out of order. He is not relating his remarks to the Amendments.

Mr. Lewis

I am sorry. If one looks at the Clause it is suggested what we should leave out. I am saying that my hon. Friend could be categorised among those. I do not know which particular one, but there are plenty there. He has industrial experience, professional experience and much other experience, so he could be one of those who could be so qualified. If he wants me to withdraw, I will certainly withdraw. My hon. Friend cannot say that I have discussed this particular point because I have not discussed the chairmanship of this board at any time. If he does not want to listen to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss his hon. Friend. He must discuss the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

I am discussing the Amendment. Again I refer to the fact that one of the persons qualified in this Clause for this chairmanship, in my opinion, could be any Member of Parliament. So if my hon. Friend does not want it, I will take it myself. I could myself be qualified. Hence if it upset him, I withdraw completely and say that I should have the job. But the facts are that I have not taken part in this debate on this matter, and I had no intention of doing so until the hon. Gentleman spoke.

Then there is the question of Lord Robens. Lord Robens could, of course, qualify according to this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned political patronage and political appointments. I am following on what was said by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Robens. The hon. Member for Ormskirk attacked this side of the House. He singled out the Postmaster-General. He had doubts about his veracity in dealing with this matter. The facts are that Lord Robens was appointed by a Conservative Prime Minister, so that the Conservatives are not backward in coming forward in this sort of matter.

Sir D. Glover

The hon. Member is being grossly unfair about my speech. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that he might be dealing with the matter for a short, limited time, and that it was much more likely to be a Tory Government dealing with the matter. I said, further, that in my view it was essential one should remove all political taint from any of these appointments.

Mr. Lewis

The hon. Gentleman never took the trouble to explain to persons who might not be present in this debate, but who might read in HANSARD or elsewhere that in fact this has been happening for some long time by parties of both political persuasions. Not only do they appoint what one might term their own—I think the expression was jobs for the boys—but they appoint their so-called political enemies, and even the absent Liberals.

One need not necessarily be qualified in the terms as set out in the Clause. One has in effect to be a good political personage, somebody who is persona grata with the ruling party of the day and who can be a good yes-man. He or she can be fairly assured of receiving one of these patronage jobs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment by the Minister is to delete such a consideration.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

The hon. Member is surely aware that the great American firm of consultants, McKinsey, were called in by the Post Office. Would it not be a good idea to ask the Postmaster-General what McKinsey recommended about these political appointments?

Mr. Lewis

I was dealing with the question of patronage and political appointments. The Postmaster-General's Amendment is to delete the Clause. The facts are that if the Clause is not deleted, political patronage can take place, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk has said.

11.15 p.m.

Dealing with the question of the American firm of consultants, it is true that the firm of McKinsey is examining the B.B.C. at the moment. Under this Clause, I should not like to see an American chairman of the B.B.C. We have too many Americans taking over the control of our industries. There are plenty of British subjects who could fill the position adequately under the Clause, and, equally, there are other people who could examine the B.B.C.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing his argument to the Question before the House, which is whether these words should be deleted.

Mr. Lewis

I am explaining that I am not sure that they should be deleted. At the moment, the Clause specifies the sort of person who may be chairman of the new board. I am toying with the idea that perhaps I am against the suggestion of the Postmaster-General about leaving out the Clause. I am thinking that I should speak in favour of leaving it in, because the Clause specifies the various types of people and their qualifications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to argue both ways. I cannot believe that what he is saying can be relevant under Standing Orders.

Mr. Lewis

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have made the point that the hon. Gentleman is not being relevant is seeking at the same time to argue both ways.

Mr. Lewis

With respect, I am not arguing both ways. I am putting the case for and the case against in order to get clear in my mind which is the best way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may quote to you the subsection in question. It says: The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall be appointed"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Chair is well aware of what the subsection says. The Question before the House—and this is the proposition which the Chair must maintain—is that these words should be deleted. The hon. Gentleman must speak to that proposition.

Mr. Lewis

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am putting forward reasons why they should not be deleted and why I feel that I should oppose the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman has made up his mind. A moment ago he was arguing both propositions.

Mr. Lewis

It is not the first time that that has been done. I have heard both Front Benches do it. No doubt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have heard Ministers putting both sides of a question when dealing with a debate, and saying, "The hon. Member for so and so made certain points, and I will deal with those points and put the arguments against them." It is by no means uncommon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman appeared to make his position quite clear in the earlier part of his speech, and then he sought to depart from it. I hope that he will address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

That may or may not be true. It is not the first time that has been done, by any means.

Mr. Onslow

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify that Ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot debate my Ruling.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order.

Mr. Onslow

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to clarify the Ruling that you have just given? Are you saying to the House that it is out of order for an hon. Member in one speech to develop two contradictory arguments and, at the end of his speech, either to come to no conclusion or to come to a particular conclusion which includes one of the arguments that he has advanced?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I made the point that this was not relevant to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Lewis

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you will look at HANSARD tomorrow, because you will find that you definitely told me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is seeking to debate the Ruling of the Chair. He cannot do that.

Mr. Lewis

I am raising a point of order. Are you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, telling me that I am not allowed to put the pros and cons of an argument and then explain to hon. Members why I come down on one side or the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Member will proceed.

Mr. Lewis

I am raising a point of order. I want this clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I will indicate when the hon. Member gets out of order.

Mr. Lewis

I will leave the Chamber and appeal to Mr. Speaker, because I am being stopped from making a speech which other hon. Members and Ministers can and do make, namely, putting both sides of the argument. I now leave the Chamber.

Hon. Members

Come back.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order. Might I suggest that some of the confusion has arisen because we are taking Amendment No. 15 with this Amendment. If Amendment No. 15 stands, the first four lines of the Clause which the Minister is seeking to leave out will remain. Therefore, this is slightly complicating. Although I appreciate the reason for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the separate Amendment moved by the Minister, the moment one starts leaving in the first four lines it becomes confusing. I wonder whether, by drawing that point to your attention, it might help.

Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member wishes to continue his speech I will be glad to give him the Floor. If not, I will have to call another hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis

I will again try to put the pros and cons. Incidentally, when I spoke on a previous Amendment about whether it should be two or four part time members on the board, I debated whether I was for two or four or in between. I put both sides of the discussion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot debate an Amendment that the House has already decided.

Mr. Lewis

I accept that. On this Amendment I am explaining to the House that there is some doubt in my mind, and there must be doubt in the minds of hon. Members opposite, whether we should support the Amendment or leave the Clause as it is. Hence, I am putting the argument for and against leaving the Clause in or accepting the Postmaster-General's Amendment. Unless I can do that I cannot make up my mind as to which way I should decide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. What the hon. Member is now seeking to do is perfectly in order. I hope that he will proceed to the Amendment.

Mr. John Smith

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is this the rest of his last speech or a fresh speech putting a fresh point of view?

Mr. Lewis

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me a little excited, but it is not my desired intention to get excited, although I apologise to Mr. Deputy Speaker for losing my temper a little while ago. I said to the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who has now left the Chamber, that I thought there was some substance in his approach as to why the Clause should be left in the Bill. It does to some extent limit the extent to which, among other things, political patronage may or may not be exercised. I was going on to explain how this had been done by a number of Governments, of both political persuasions, in various respects. I had got to the point of referring to the Chairman of the National Coal Board who had received political patronage, and I was going on to show how, if the chairmanship of this board happened to be a more lucrative one, Lord Robens might be the chairman of it. I was then interrupted by the hon. Gentleman who raised the question of Lord Wigg and the Horse-race Betting Levy Board.

It may be asked what that Board has to do with the Amendment which seeks to leave out subsection (4) which states that the Chairman shall have shown capacity in a number of matters. I shall not go into them in any great detail, but they include financial matters, politics, economics, and professional and other activities. It may be that somehow or other Lord Wigg will qualify for this job. At the moment his job is worth about £8,000 a year. If the chairmanship of this new board comes in at £20,000 a year, it may be that Lord Wigg will claim that he has the administrative ability and the political qualifications for the job.

I am speaking in favour of Lord Wigg, because I do not think that he and others like him have been fairly dealt with. Lord Wigg has given honourable service. He was given a job—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the proposition before the House, which is whether these words should be maintained or deleted.

Mr. Lewis

I am at the moment suggesting, before I have made up my mind completely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is not taking the Amendment seriously.

Mr. Lewis

It is amazing how some people in this House can read my mind and tell me what I am thinking. I am thinking that as the Clause stands it gives a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends a qualification and an entitlement to be selected for this chairmanship. If the Clause remains unaltered many of those who have been hard done by over the last few years by being given jobs in which they earn between £6,000 and £10,000 a year might qualify for a £20,000 job. I am toying with the idea that it is better to leave this provision in than to delete it, because whilst this provision is in the Bill it provides those people with a chance of being considered for this new job.

Mr. Hay

In coming to this rather difficult decision, as he clearly is, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if he accepts the Amendment none of the considerations to which he has referred would apply. If, for example, there was a problem about whether the noble lord, Lord Wigg, would qualify, under the words proposed to be deleted that problem would disappear, because anybody, whatever his qualifications, however minimal they be, could be appointed.

The hon. Gentleman talked about foreign nationals. Under the subsection a foreign national could be appointed to this board. There is no reference to the person appointed being of British nationality. Would the hon. Gentleman care to pursue that?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

I started to go through the list of those who would be so qualified under the Clause if it were not amended, and I had not by then reached the stage of the alternative, which is to delete the Clause and then come to the points mentioned by the hon. Member.

As there is no specified qualification—this is the point on which I am in doubt—laid down in the Bill, it might well be, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) said, that one could get an American appointed.

Mr. Clegg

Or de Gaulle.

Mr. Lewis

Whether that would be satisfactory I do not know. But it might be as well to consider whether this is the Minister's intention. There could be a number of alternatives. This is the problem with which we are confronted: will the deletion make it easier or more difficult for the Postmaster-General to make up his mind about the right person for the appointment?

Mr. Speed

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is immaterial whether the Clause is in or out? The Clause is a Freudian slip and a standard brief for appointment to all the things that we have been discussing. Whether it is in or out will not affect the matter one way or other.

Mr. Lewis

I do not know. This was not the point that the Minister put when he moved the deletion. I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), but I am not sure that he would be as well briefed as the Postmaster-General. If the Postmaster-General can assure me that that is the situation I shall be happy to accept that the hon. Member for Meriden is correct, but that is not the position at the moment.

I rose for a few minutes to make a few remarks, but I have been interrupted rather more than I would have wished, and even at this moment I am not clear about it, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to clarify some of the points that I have put to him.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman said just now about the two sides of the argument is not coloured by the fact that he has misinterpreted the Clause. He has been talking about the qualifications of these persons, whether they have wide experience or have shown capacity for the subject. But the Clause does not say that. It says that it should appear to the Minister that that is so. The hon. Gentleman has been talking as though they have to have these qualifications. Clearly, they have not; they have to appear to have them, according to the Minister, which is a different matter.

Captain Orr

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was churlish to the Minister, and I want to express a corrective note. Although the Minister was uncharacteristically high-handed and non-forthcoming on the previous Amendment and his general treatment of the Committee was not in accordance with what we expect from him, none the less on this occasion he has gone a long way to meet the arguments which some of us put in Committee. In that respect, I am grateful to him.

The Minister was good enough to quote something that I said in Committee as his reason for the deletion of the Clause. He undertook during the course of the Committee stage to look again at the whole question of the qualifications for the members of the board. He has done so, and he has removed the qualifications entirely.

I think it is true that taking this form of words and the removal of the qualifications entirely has not made a great deal of difference, but what has emerged from the debate resulting from the Minister's proposition and particularly from the cogent and lucid exposition of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is that there is a need for something else to be inserted. There needs to be some form of words which disqualify certain persons from membership of this board. This is something which perhaps the Postmaster-General will look at between now and a later stage of the Bill. He was good enough to look at it before, but it was never apparent—perhaps because we did not look at it closely enough in Committee—that these words were not completely exclusive.

The hon. Member for West Ham. North quite properly raised the question whether or not the Minister now had an absolute discretion—which he has; the removal of this subsection will give the Minister an absolute discretion. But there are certain things which Parliament should tell a future Minister he should have in mind when appointing persons and that there are certain types of person whom he should not appoint to the new board. Whether or not foreign nationals would come into it I do not know; but this is worthy of consideration.

One can think of a great many categories, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends could expand upon this. One case that springs to mind immediately is this. What would be the position of a director of a firm supplying the Post Office—say, the director of a company which has very large contracts for the supply of Post Office telephone exchange equipment? Would such a person be eligible for part-time or full-time membership of this board? It would be almost unthinkable that any responsible Minister would appoint anyone of that sort who was in a contractual relationship with the Post Office. But could we not write something into the legislation?

Mr. Ridley

My hon. and gallant Friend will find in Schedule 1, paragraph 3, that this point of connection with businesses supplying the Post Office is fully dealt with. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is on a good point in relation to other people, but this particular point, I think, is covered in that Schedule.

Captain Orr

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I had not studied Schedule 1. paragraph 3. Rather than waste the time of the House, I will take my hon. Friend's word for it that it is covered.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), surely relates largely to financial interests rather than to qualifications. Is that not the case? The reference that my hon. and gallant Friend needs is Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2).

Captain Orr

Yes. It states: A member of the Post Office who is in any way directly or indirectly interested …

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. This relates to contracts and is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.

Captain Orr

I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because from a quick glance at that provision that is precisely the conclusion that I had come to.

This brings me back to the argument that I was addressing to the Postmaster-General, which is that it would still presumably be possible, with the removal of this subsection, for a Postmaster-General to appoint to the new Post Office board someone who was a director of a company which had a contractual relationship or a proposed contractual relationship with the Post Office.

One can think of many other examples of people whom it may be desirable to have on the board. It may well be undesirable, however, to have persons on it connected with other boards which might well be suppliers or customers of the Post Office. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will look at this again even further than he has done. He is right in eliminating the positive qualifications but there may be negative ones. If he will agree to look again at this matter we might be able to make a little progress.

Mr. Joseph Slater

The hon. Member keeps asking my right hon. Friend to look at this point and that. We debated this matter at length in Committee and my right hon. Friend and I have given due credit to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the case they put forward there. We looked at it again and arrived at a conclusion. We thought that we had given an accommodation to the Opposition but now it appears that we have not even done that.

Captain Orr

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I chided my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because I thought he was being a little churlish about this. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman considered this matter carefully in the light of what we said in Committee and brought forward this proposal as a result. All I am saying as a result of this debate is that it appears that perhaps the matter should be looked at again, not on the point of qualifications, on which we have been met, but on the need perhaps for making certain exclusions. That is something we did not even consider in Committee. Perhaps we should have done.

Mr. Stonehouse

But this point was considered by my hon. Friend and I in considering the deletion of subsection (4) and we decided that it would be better to leave it within the discretion of that Minister of the day rather than attempt to write into another subsection the provisions the hon. Gentleman has been describing as being required. We believed that the deletion of subsection (4) would meet the point entirely.

Captain Orr

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying he has considered this. Did he consider the example I have given of persons with contractual relations?

Mr. Stonehouse

indicated assent.

Captain Orr

It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is right. I suppose that Parliament would have an ultimate sanction in that it could question the Minister about his appointments at the time they were made. But that is the only sanction which Parliament would have if a Minister brushed aside a Parliamentary Question on the matter. It is almost inconceivable that a responsible Minister would behave in this way, but there is something to be said for an "exclusion" subsection. The Minister has gone a long way to give us what we asked for, and I at least am content.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Onslow

The debate has not made it any easier for me to make up my mind. The careful rehearsal of the issues on both sides by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is partly the reason for my confusion. I also know how anxious my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is to see verbal sludge washed down the Parliamentary plug-hole, and the words which he has played an important part in persuading the Minister to delete are a considerable piece of sludge. There is another beauty which the Minister will seek to put in later. But, keen though my hon. Friend is to campaign against the pollution of the English language, and avidly though I look forward to his introduction of a Clean Speech Bill, I am still not happy about the effect of the total deletion of these particular words.

They must originally have been inserted for a purpose. A great deal of money has been spent printing the Bill, and laundry lists and such things are not included by accident. So a suspicious mind must conclude that something has happened between Committee and Report that conflicts with that purpose. A possible explanation is that it was discovered that the words would disquality someone for whom it was urgently necessary to find a job. Particularly when I read that the person concerned should not only have had "wide experience" but also have "shown capacity" to the Postmaster-General in certain stipulated areas of human endeavour, it occurred to me that, after the events of the past few days, one who could be disqualified from employment on the board was the Prime Minister himself. Although there are some things here of which he has had experience, the insistence on capacity in "professional or financial matters" would surely exclude him. The second possiblity was that there might have been an urgent necessity to find a job for the ex-Government Chief Whip and present Minister of Public things. The last part of the stipulation—"organisation of workers"—would exclude him.

But the English language is such a dangerous trap: on a fifth reading of this bit of the Bill I found that I had been reading "and" for "or" in the penultimate line. On that basis, and on rereading the provision a sixth time, I concluded that my apprehensions had been unfounded. Thus, although I am not content to leave a matter of this importance to the discretion of any Minister—I share the anxieties of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about this—I suppose we can allow the Bill to be purged to some extent of its linguistic nastiness by the removal of these words. But if the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely seeking an alternative form of words, I hope that between now and the Measure reaching another place he will consider inserting after The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall … the phrase, "be worthy of their hire."

Mr. Biggs-Davison

The Postmaster-General is so engaging that at first I was persuaded by his argument. However, the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) gave me time for peaceful meditation and, in the course of my reflection on the Amendment, I became disturbed by its implications. I wondered what was the motive of the right hon. Gentleman and began to puzzle whether he had taken advantage of the zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the English language. Had the right hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity to slip in an Amendment in the hope of getting it approved quickly, I wondered?

If accepted, the Amendment will give the Postmaster-General much more power of patronage than he would have with the subsection in the Bill. Why is the form of words which apply to other public corporations being departed from in the case of the Post Office? There may be good reasons, but I should like to hear them.

The Amendment will also give the right hon. Gentleman much greater flexibility in deciding on the appointments he makes to the board. For example, I note that the Liberal Bench is empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I apologise to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), whom I always regard as a very special Liberal. Perhaps the rest of his colleagues are, even now, queuing up at the Post Office headquarters in the hope of being nominated to the new board.

Why has the Postmaster-General departed from the form of words governing other public corporations in other Statutes? I hope that he will develop his argument about his attitude to this matter. For example, he said that while he wished to delete the curious qualifications for membership of the board as stated in the subsection, he wished it to be clear that his attitude towards the workers remained the same. I should like him to say a little more about that. If this is to disappear from the Bill, what is the good of the Postmaster-General saying that he has a certain attitude? He will not be there very long.

Mr. Joseph Slater

The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend might not be here very long. That is a matter of opinion. The hon Member has a right to his opinion but others have a right to theirs. I should say that my right hon. Friend will be here for quite a long time yet.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I was in no way disputing that the Postmaster-General has a right to his opinion and we like to hear his opinions. I merely asked that he should develop the argument a little further and explain the significance of his attitude. In the long perspective of history the tenure of office of Postmasters-General is not of enormous length. Unless we can hear more about this provision, I do not feel inclined to support the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg

This has been an interesting and serious debate and we have heard finely balanced arguments from both sides of the House. My first reaction was to welcome the Amendment because it seemed to make more of an honest woman of the Bill. As it stood the Clause seemed very hypocritical because it seemed on the surface to suggest that the power of the Minister to appoint the chairman or a member of the board was limited in some way, but the provision was so widely drawn that any limitation of that power was absolutely meaningless. In saying to the House today, "What I want is a quite unrestricted power to appoint whom I wish", the Minister was making a much more honest approach.

This has led the House to consider points made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's approach that Parliament is giving him unrestricted power. We are worried about the immense power of patronage involved.

Mr. Ridley

Another curious thing is that the Minister is not able to appoint hon. Members of this House, but is allowed to appoint noble Lords to the board. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that that contains an element of discrimination?

Mr. Clegg

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has much greater knowledge of the Bill than I have. I understand that if an hon. Member were appointed he would have to resign his membership of this House, but a member of another place could be appointed and still take part in debates there. That would be a terrible situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

This would no longer be an office of profit under the Crown.

Mr. Clegg

It might be a good thing to have the head of the Post Office in this House as a Member.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

He is now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) relates his remarks to the Amendment. The proposition is whether these words should be deleted or not.

Mr. Clegg

I was trying to explain the deep feeling about the power of patronage which to some extent, although perhaps in form more than anything else, would be wider if the Amendment were accepted. I thought that my hon. Friend was trying to help me to develop my argument.

Mr. Speed

Schedule 1 says: Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 … shall, in its application to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, be amended by inserting, at the appropriate point in alphabetical order, the words 'The Post Office'. I realise that we have not got to Schedule 1 yet, but I thought it might help my hon. Friend if I pointed that out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Clegg.

Mr. Clegg

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). It underlines the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not sure what point it underlined, but the lion. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) certainly did not address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg

I thought that it was a great help, because it showed us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment if he wishes to continue speaking.

12 m.

Mr. Clegg

Perhaps I had better return to my main argument. I do not want to be distracted.

The argument of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) showed quite clearly his concern about the way in which the power of patronage was to be exercised. His main argument was concerned with the power of patronage when it is exercised towards politicians. I think that this is the deep, underlying concern of the House. Whether it accepts the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing the general principle, but whether these words should be deleted from the Clause. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg

With the greatest respect, I think that the argument I was putting forward was germane, because there is a difference between the powers the Minister can exercise if the Clause is deleted and those he can exercise if it stays in. The original Clause gave us a Freudian glimpse into what was in his mind, which was clearly that politicians could be appointed to jobs on the board, including that of chairman. Now the Minister has said that he wants an unfettered discretion, and in so far as I said earlier that that attitude is less hypocritical than that originally shown in the Bill, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Speed

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) sparked off doubts in my mind about the Amendment which has been growing as the debate has proceeded. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about political appointments, and if we accept the Amendment, or even the Amendment of my lion. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), political appointments as such will not be written into the Bill. But as politicians we must be a little careful about this. We do not want to arrive at the stage where politicians are debarred from all appointments to public service on various boards. A great deal of mealy-mouthed nonsense can be talked.

We are seeking the best possible people to serve on the board, bearing in mind the great responsibilities they will have. If we accept the Amendment the Minister will be left with wide and unfettered powers to appoint whom he will. Looking at the appointments to similar organisations over the years, one can only assume that from time to time there will be a combination of industrialists, trade unionists and politicians and all the rest, some of whom will no doubt do a good job, while others perhaps will not do such a good job. Will it make much difference if we leave the subsection in? It is drawn so wide that even members of the present Government will no doubt fall into one or other of the categories. It would be very difficult to find any person in the country who would not.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The subsection says that they shall not only have wide experience but have shown capacity. How can my hon. Friend possibly maintain that hon. Members opposite have shown capacity in their chosen trade?

Mr. Speed

I remind my hon. Friend—

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) talked about precedents. I remind him that a distinguished member of the Tory Party, and also a Member of this House, Sir Victor Raikes, was for many years a member of the commercial organisation, a quasi-Government organisation—I refer to the Hops Board—in view of his special knowledge of the products. He was appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. It was an office of profit under the Crown because he was paid £500 a year, having regard to his special knowledge, and he was not a bibulous character.

Mr. Speed

I hope he was a working director and no doubt he sampled the hops from time to time. Going back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was saying, the Bill does say: wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in matters concerning", and it also says appearing to the Minister". There were references at the weekend to Ministers going on, but even Ministers can be misled occasionally about that aspect of contemporary political life. We are not judging these things in political terms, and any appointment must be made at a particular moment—

Mr. Onslow

The real objection is to the words "to the Minister". The Minister will have much power over the future of his own colleagues.

Mr. Speed

That could be a point and I cannot see that there will be a difference whether the subsection is in or the Minister's Amendment is made and the subsection is out.

Mr. Philip Holland (Carlton)

Is not the distinction that if the words are in, the Minister will at least have to justify his appointments against the criteria, however vague?

Mr. Speed

My hon. Friend was anticipating my next remark. If the criteria are printed, at least we can measure the effectiveness of the yardstick of appointments against a political criteria. All will know that a criteria is being applied and there may be occasions when a former politician would be an admirable member of the board and it is nonsense to pretend that politicians or bankers or anybody else should be excluded if they happened to do a good job on the board.

What worries me much more is patronage of the Minister, not this Minister in particular, but Ministers of all political parties, because I have been making investigations and there is no doubt that Ministers in every Department appoint literally thousands of people to thousands of boards, councils and committees all over the country. This has gone on over the years under all Governments.

There is an argument for incorporating in the Bill the sort of criteria and qualities the Minister is to look for when he chooses these members of the board, be they full time or part time. For all these reasons, including the parlous usage argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I think the Amendment will be beneficial. The Assistant Postmaster-General has argued that because this subsection was accepted by the Committee it should be accepted by the House.

I was not a member of the Committee. In discussing Bills on Report those of us who have not been on the Committee sometimes feel like strangers looking in through the window. We cannot follow some of the details, which have no doubt been debated continuously in Committee. On the arguments so far advanced I cannot bring myself to support either the Amendment of the Minister or that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

I never used to be a suspicious person, but having been a Member of this House for only a very few months I have learned to be suspicious. Like many of my hon. Friends I am suspicious when a Minister so readily makes what, on the face of it, is a concession. I want to ask a simple question. What does the Minister think would be the practical result of the acceptance of this Amendment? This puzzles me.

Mr. Joseph Slater

The hon. Member was a member of the Committee. Is he speaking against the recommendation of my right hon. Friend, in view of what happened in Committee?

Mr. Waddington

I am hoping that when the Minister replies to the debate he will explain in rather plainer words than he has so far used, precisely what will be the legal effect of the deletion of the words at the end of subsection (4). A number of hon. Members seemed to have assumed that if it stands then only those who have wide experience in the industrial, commercial, professional or financial sphere will be able to be appointed to the board. It is not so. The crucial words are: … from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience … Perhaps later the Postmaster-General will find it helpful to call for one of the law officers to help on this.

I seem to remember, from my student days, that there was a famous case called Liversidge and Anderson. This Clause seems to allow the Minister to appoint whoever he likes, and there is no fetter on his discretion, even as the Clause stands. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he would explain how he considers that the appointment can be challenged?

Can it be challenged in the courts on the ground that the person appointed was not a person with wide experience of industrial matters? After an appointment has been made, can Members of this House challenge the appointment and have it rescinded on the ground that the person did not have a wide experience of industrial or commercial matters? I think not. It seems that the only way in which the Minister's Amendment could be commended to the House would be on the basis that he would be deleting from the Bill a mass of useless verbiage, of which there is far too much in the Bill.

I was a member of the Committee, and I remember that at the end of Committee

stage I and my hon. Friends were complimented because we had not gone into all the minutiae of the Bill. One hon. Member opposite said that we could have extended the Committee stage by months if we had dealt with various points of the Schedule. It should not be held against me tonight that we helped the Government in Committee. The Postmaster-General owes it to the House to explain in a little more detail what he thinks will be achieved if these words are deleted.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 150.

Division No. 193.]	AYES	[12.15 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Ensor, David	Lomas, Kenneth
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fernyhough, E.	Loughlin, Charles
Alldritt, Walter	Finch, Harold	Luard, Evan
Anderson, Donald	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Archer, Peter	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Foley, Maurice	MacDermot, Niall
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Macdonald, A. H.
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Ford, Ben	McGuire, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Forrester, John	McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Barnett, Joel	Fowler, Gerry	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Freeson, Reginald	Mackie, John
Bidwell, Sydney	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Maclennan, Robert
Binns, John	Gregory, Arnold	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles
Bishop, E. S.	Grey, Charles (Durham)	MacPherson, Malcolm
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Booth, Albert	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Boston, Terence	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (HUddersfield, E.)
Boyden, James	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Manuel, Archie
Bradley, Tom	Hamling, William	Marks, Kenneth
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Harper, Joseph	Marquand, David
Brooks, Edwin	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Haseldine, Norman	Mayhew, Christopher
Buchan, Norman	Hattersley, Roy	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hazell, Bert	Mendelson, John
Coe, Denis	Henig, Stanley	Mikardo, Ian
Coleman, Donald	Horner, John	Millan, Bruce
Conlan, Bernard	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Crawshaw, Richard	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Howie, W.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Hoy, James	Molloy, William
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Huckfield, Leslie	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hunter, Adam	Moyle, Roland
Dell, Edmund	Hynd, John	Murray, Albert
Dempsey, James	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Newens, Stan
Dewar, Donald	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Norwood, Christopher
Dickens, James	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Oakeg, Gordon
Dobson, Ray	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Ogden, Eric
Driberg, Tom	Judd, Frank	O'Malley, Brian
Dunn, James A.	Kenyon, Clifford	Oram, Albert E.
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Orme, Stanley
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Oswald, Thomas
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lawson, George	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Eadie, Alex	Leadbitter, Ted	Page, Derek (King's[...]nn)
Ellis, John	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Paget, R. T.
English, Michael	Lee, John (Reading)	Palmet, Arthur
Ennals, David	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Park, Trevor
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Wellbeloved, James
Pavitt, Laurence	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Whitaker, Ben
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Silverman, Julius	White, Mrs. Eirene
Price, William (Rugby)	Skeffington, Arthur	Wilkins, W. A.
Probert, Arthur	Slater, Joseph	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Rees, Merlyn	Spriggs, Leslie	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Richard, Ivor	Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Taverne, Dick	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. F'c'as)	Tinn, James	Winnick, David
Roebuck, Roy	Varley, Eric G.	Woof, Robert
Rose, Paul	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Rowlands, E.	Wallace, George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Watkins, David (Consett)	Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Sheldon, Robert	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gurden, Harold	Neave, Airey
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Onslow, Cranley
Awdry, Daniel	Hawkins, Paul	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Hay, John	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Balniel, Lord	Higgins, Terence L.	Pardoe, John
Batsford, Brian	Hiley, Joseph	Percival, Ian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Holland, Philip	Peyton, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Hornby, Richard	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Howell, David (Guildford)	Pink, R. Bonner
Biggs-Davison, John	Hunt, John	Pounder, Rafton
Black, Sir Cyril	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Blaker, Peter	Iremonger, T. L.	Prior, J. M. L.
Body, Richard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pym, Francis
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Braine, Bernard	Jopling, Michael	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridsdale, Julian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Kershaw, Anthony	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Kitson, Timothy	Royle, Anthony
Burden, F. A.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Russell, Sir Ronald
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Lambton, Viscount	Scott, Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Sharples, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.	Lane, David	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clark, Henry	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Silvester, Frederick
Clegg, Walter	Longden, Gilbert	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Cordle, John	Lubbock, Eric	Speed, Keith
Crouch, David	MacArthur, Ian	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Summers, Sir Spencer
d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Tapsell, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Donnelly, Desmond	McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Drayson, G. B.	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Eden, Sir John	Marten, Neil	Waddington, David
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maude, Angus	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Mawby, Ray	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Emery, Peter	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Weatherill, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Farr, John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Foster, Sir John	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Wiggin, A. W.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Miscampbell, Norman	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Monro, Hector	Woodnutt, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Worsley, Marcus
Goodhew, Victor	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Grant, Anthony	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant-Ferris, R.	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Mr. Jasper More and
Gresham Cooke, R.	Murton, Oscar	Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
Grieve, Percy

Question put accordingly and agreed to.