Sitting of 22 April 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Milk Consumption
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Food the total consumption of full-price liquid milk by the public in January, 1953; and how this compares with the corresponding period a year earlier.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): 109.57 and 110.91 million gallons, respectively.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister not concerned about this big reduction in milk consumption which is so vital to the health of the nation, and does he not now see that the increased cost of living and the increased cost of milk is having a harmful effect?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the decline between the two months he mentioned is only 1.2 per cent., that the milk not so consumed all goes for cheese or infants' foods, and that there has been a decline in welfare milk, in which there has been no price change whatever.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food the consumption of full price fresh milk for the month of March.
    Dr. Hill: One hundred and ten million gallons.
    Mr. Willey: Would not the Minister agree that this shows again a substantial reduction on last year's figure, which was an appreciable reduction compared with the previous year? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be no further increase in the price of milk this year?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member knows that I cannot give any such assurance on this subject. For the rest, I refer him to the reply I have given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds).

    Quick Frozen Vegetables
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the imports of quick frozen vegetables into this country from Europe are insufficient to meet demands; and if he will consider increasing the quota for the 12 months commencing 1st July, 1953.
    Dr. Hill: I understand that supplies are quite adequate, apart from quick frozen peas, of which the home production will start before July. An increase of the import quota would not be justified.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, owing to the shortage of quick frozen vegetables, many thousands of families have gone short, or have had no fresh vegetables, as a result of the high prices owing to lack of rain in the growing areas? Is he also aware that quick frozen vegetables are not now a luxury and that they are supplied to hospitals, industrial canteens, schools and the catering trade in general, and that this has now become a great need owing to the differences in climate which we get at different periods of the year resulting in a shortage of fresh vegetables?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will realise that these import cuts were imposed for balance of payments reasons and that imports constitute under 15 per cent. of our total supplies. We hope that the increasing public demand will be met by an increase in home production.

    Prices and Calories
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Food to give an estimate of the overall cost per pound for British consumers of flour, bread, sugar, margarine and potatoes, respectively, if unsubsidised and untaxed; and, on that basis, what is the estimated number of calories obtainable from each for the price of 1d.
    Dr. Hill: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the answer is that sugar works out at far the best value for money as regards calories, and that therefore the object of my Question is to ask him to de-ration sugar, but that I would like him to know that I am satisfied with the efficient manner in which he is getting on with that job?
    Dr. Hill: I have to inform my hon. Friend that it is flour which is head of the list and sugar which is second.
    Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the Press statements today concerning the possibilities of taking subsidies off some of these foodstuffs, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the cost of essential foodstuffs is already a grievous burden on lower paid wage earners, and on pensioners in particular?
    Dr. Hill: I have not seen the Press statements referred to.
    Mr. Thomas: I will send the Minister a copy.
    Dr. Hill: All such considerations as the hon. Gentleman raises will always be borne in mind.
    Following is the information:
    The following table shows for 1952–53 the estimated retail price per pound of these commodities if unsubsidised and untaxed, and the estimated number of calories obtainable from each of them for 1d.

    —

    Estimated price per 1b. unsubsidised and untaxed(1952–53)

    Equivalent number of calories per 1d.

    Flour

    …

    6·0d.

    254

    Bread

    …

    5·5d.

    209

    Sugar

    …

    7·25d.

    238

    Margarine

    …

    1s. 6·5d.

    188

    Potatoes

    …

    2·2d.

    118

    Food Poisoning (Hygiene)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food whether he has noted the recent increase in the number of cases of dysentery and enteric diseases due to contamination of food by those who handle it; and what action he is taking to protect the public.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take in
    1144
    view of the opinion expressed in Command Paper No. 8787 that the prevention of outbreaks of food poisoning depends mainly on the standard of personal and kitchen hygiene in catering establishments.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend and I have seen the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health for the year 1951. The public can be protected by scrupulous domestic and personal cleanliness and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, local authorities, the Central Council for Health Education, my Department, and other bodies will continue to emphasise the need for high standards of personal and kitchen hygiene. There will shortly be published by my Department a manual of guidance on hygiene in the catering industries.
    Dr. Stross: But can the Minister state whether he would not approach the national and local Press to assist him, and can he say whether he has attempted to advertise through the Press asking that those who handle food should wash their hands after using the lavatory? If he has had no success, will he tell us why, and will he try again by asking for their co-operation?
    Dr. Hill: I have described the channels of public education, but I will certainly give consideration to any further suggestions which the hon. Member has to make.
    Dr. Broughton: Will the hon. Gentleman use to the utmost his influence amongst his colleagues in the Government to expedite the long-promised legislation, which has as its purpose the raising of the average standard of hygiene in catering establishments?
    Dr. Hill: I realise the need for amending legislation, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that in dealing with this problem standards of personal conduct are not less important—indeed, more important. If I may say so, I appreciated greatly the booklet which the hon. Gentleman has just written for the St. John Ambulance Association as an added contribution to public health.

    Diet (Cost)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food the present cost per week of a diet consisting each day of 2 lb. 2 oz. of whole-

    1145
    meal bread, 4 oz. of the cheapest imported cheese, one orange and one dessertspoonful of cod liver oil.
    Dr. Hill: About 11s.
    Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that this is the cheapest possible diet that will allow an adult to work and retain his health, and that it is said to contain all the protective substances as well as calories, proteins, etc.? Does he agree that 11s. is nearly three times as much as this diet used to cost in the '30s, when it was 4s., and will he assure the House that he is aware of the serious problem facing the vulnerable classes in our country as the result of the rising prices of food?
    Dr. Hill: I appreciate that this diet may be scientifically satisfactory, but it is also a pretty melancholy proposition. Secondly, I disagree with the calculation of the hon. Gentleman, for I make the pre-war cost of this unattractive diet 6s. 4d. per week.
    Mr. Legh: May we take it that this economy diet will be advocated in the Labour Party's statement of policy?
    Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that I have quoted figures which were given by Professor Mottram, who first put this forward as a diet which nobody could eat but which contains in theory all that is needed to protect one? If I am right and the figure is less than 6s. 4d. and nearer 4s., will the hon. Gentleman take a little more care in view of his responsibilities to the country?
    Dr. Hill: Perhaps the hon. Member and I might have a private argument about it.
    Mrs. Mann: If it becomes necessary to follow this diet, would the Parliamentary Secretary publish an alternative way of committing hara-kiri?
    Dr. Hill: It is not necessary to follow this diet and we are rapidly proceeding to a better and more varied diet.

    Flour Improvers
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food whether he now recognises vitamin C as a flour improver; and how far his investigations show this substance to be harmless for such a purpose.
    Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) on 23rd February. The investigations are still in progress.
    Dr. Stross: Does the Minister realise that these investigations have been in progress for a very long time? Could he not answer at least that part of the Question which asks whether this is an accepted and recognised form of flour improver? If he thinks that it is, will he not state that this, at least, would be harmless if it were used?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will understand more than most Members the time that investigations of this scientific character usually take, and I share his desire for a speedy conclusion. On the face of it, vitamin C seems a reasonable and hopeful proposition, but the investigations are not yet complete.
    Mr. Logan: If the cost of food gets higher, is it the Government's intention to issue vitamin tablets?
    Dr. Hill: I pray not.

    International Wheat Agreement (Prices)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food how the price of 2 dollars offered under the International Wheat Agreement compares with the price paid for homegrown wheat.
    Dr. Hill: A price of 2 dollars a bushel for No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat in store in Fort William is at present equivalent to about £32 15s. 9d. a ton landed in this country. The guaranteed average minimum price of home-grown wheat of the 1953 harvest will be £30 15s. a ton at farm. These prices are not strictly comparable owing to differences in quality.
    Mr. Osborne: In so far as they are comparable, do these figures suggest either that 2 dollars is too much for us to pay for international wheat or that there is no featherbedding of our domestic farmers, as has been suggested so many times by hon. Members opposite?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend made a plain and forthright statement to the House recently on the subject of the wheat agreement. I think I had better leave it at that.
    Mr. Willey: While I fully recognise the difficulties of this agreement and the lack of realism by the wheat producing countries, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is not disturbed that we are isolated in this matter and that there seems to be something in the criticism which has been made of us that we are haggling about the wrong price—that we have agreed to the floor price and are haggling about a ceiling price which will probably never become operative?
    Dr. Hill: I believe the whole House will regard the attitude taken by the Government on this issue as right, and I think it would be wise to leave it at that.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision not to feather-bed American farmers as well as the British has given great satisfaction to housewives and taxpayers?

    British Grain Ships, Vancouver
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to deal with the problems arising from the detention at Vancouver of British grain-ships chartered by his Department, owing to a strike of elevator workers at that port.
    Dr. Hill: Some of the ships are making intermediate voyages pending the end of the strike, while others are being released from charter.
    Mr. Gower: May I ask, first, whether this involves my hon. Friend's Department in a direct financial loss? Second, has my hon. Friend any news of the "Queen City," owned by Reardon-Smith, Ltd., of Cardiff, and chartered by his Department, which has been detained at Vancouver since 17th February last? Has he thought of arranging for the vendors to ship this cargo from the two elevators unaffected by the strike or from another port where there is no strike?
    Dr. Hill: Following a letter from the hon. Member two days ago on a particular aspect of this matter, inquiries are being made and a reply will be sent to him in due course.

    Sugar
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food how much per lb. in pence he is paying, respectively, for sugar recently
    1148
    purchased from Cuba, from Jamaica, and from domestic suppliers, the prices to be inclusive of all transport and other costs.
    Dr. Hill: The figures are 4d., 5½d. and 5d. a lb., respectively.
    Mr. Osborne: While recognising that the figure of 4d. denotes a kind of bargain basement price that cannot be regarded as normal, may I ask whether there is any limit either in price or in time to the guarantee that we give to the Imperial producers of sugar?
    Dr. Hill: The Commonwealth Agreement lasts until 1960, with provision thereafter for its annual renewal. There is nothing in this purchase which in any way affects that agreement or the position of the Commonwealth producers there-under.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that in 1951, when it was my responsibility to buy sugar for the British nation, I suggested approaching Cuba and the "Daily Express" headlined it by saying: "Big-hearted Arthur giving away the Empire." Is the Minister interfering with the freedom of the Press, or has the "Daily Express" thought better of it?
    Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for the "Daily Express."
    Mr. Bottomley: I was not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the "Daily Express." What I asked is whether the Minister of Food used his powers in any way to prevent the "Daily Express" from repeating these things?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that when the buying of sugar is turned over to private people it will be possible for them to buy as cheaply as this sugar from Cuba, which has been bought by the method of bulk purchase which hon. Members opposite have so often condemned?
    Dr. Hill: I cannot speculate on future prices. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have a guess."] I will not even proceed to the art of guessing. I have no reason to suppose that the private traders will not do better than Government purchase.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food the price of sugar per lb. bought

    1149
    under the Cuban contract, and what will be the retail selling price per 1b. when the subsidy is withdrawn.
    Dr. Hill: About 2½d. per lb., free alongside ship in Cuba, which is equivalent to about 4d. per lb. landed duty paid. I cannot yet say what the retail selling price will be when the subsidy is withdrawn.
    Mrs. Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that, when the subsidy is withdrawn, its amount, about 1d., will be added to the present price of sugar?
    Dr. Hill: The Cuban sugar is one-fifth of our total supply. Prices for sugar from other sources, including the Commonwealth and home production, for next year are not yet ascertainable, so it is not possible to give a precise answer. Although it is hoped that it will be possible to remove the subsidy without an increase in price, this cannot be definitely stated now.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to control the prices of cakes, biscuits, soft drinks, icecream, etc., consequent on the withdrawal of the subsidy from sugar.
    Dr. Hill: There is no subsidy on sugar for manufacturing.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Food what proportion of the sugar secured from Cuba will be allocated to makers of confectionery and chocolates.
    Dr. Hill: It is impossible to separate out the allocation of this sugar from that of the other sugar distributed.
    Mr. Sorensen: May we anticipate a substantial increase in the quantity of sweets and confectionery at no higher prices?
    Dr. Hill: The percentage of total sugar supplies which goes to this end is between 9 and 10. Both the domestic ration and the manufacturing allocations are to be increased by 20 per cent. on 17th May, but the percentage of between 9 and 10 will remain the same.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first result of his Cuban transaction will be to replace Socialist shortage by Tory abundance?
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what will be the price per lb. of sugar from the West Indies?
    Dr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I gave the figure, 5½d. per lb., in respect of Jamaica.

    Argentine Meat
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food for a statement on the present position regarding the import of meat from the Argentine.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food to make a statement regarding developments in the position in the matter of meat imports from the Argentine Republic.
    Dr. Hill: I have nothing to add to the information given by my right hon. and gallant Friend on 1st April, save that loadings for April have not so far been affected.
    Mr. Willey: Is it not a fact that we have still not agreed the import list with the Argentine, and is this not very disturbing? Again, we realise the difficulties, but will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do his utmost to get this meat speeded up and to get it moving, as we hoped would be done when we signed the agreement?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will appreciate that part of that question should be directed to another Minister. On the subject of Argentine shipments, the hon. Member will be interested to know that so far this year 67,500 tons of the meat has been cleared out of the 238,000 which they agreed to send us in the last Protocol.

    Sausages (Meat Content)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to ensure that sausages contain a minimum meat content.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Willey: Is not the hon. Gentleman disappointed? The "free" sausage is disappointing a large number of my constituents and others in the country. After all, the trade expected a standard to be laid down. When the Minister allocates more meat, ought he not to make sure that we get a better sausage in return?
    Dr. Hill: The object of de-control is to enable local and personal preferences to be satisfied, and it is up to consumers, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, to exercise their own choice in securing the kind of sausage they want.
    Brigadier Peto: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons to this important matter?
    Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Gentleman at least make sure that meat sausages contain some meat?
    Dr. Hill: There has been a substantial increase in the allocation of meat to both larger manufacturers and individual butchers, and more meat is finding its way into sausages than under the last Administration.

    Eggs
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food the average age of eggs now being sold in retail shops.
    Dr. Hill: Following decontrol, this information is no longer available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all the eggs now being sold in retail shops go through the Ministry of Food's packing stations? Surely he must be in a position to know that many of the eggs are a little too old to preserve and that many housewives will be deceived and disappointed?
    Dr. Hill: The error the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes is to think that they are the Ministry of Food's packing stations. They never were, and they are not today. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now to be deprived of his favourite series of questions on the age of eggs.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary make clear to what extent the Government are responsible for eggs now being sold in grocers shops which bear the stamp of the packing stations?
    Dr. Hill: The grading standards are the same as in the past. The Government's responsibility is to secure that the price paid to producers for eggs does not fall below the floor price which has been announced.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to control the price of eggs bought in bulk during the flush period for preserving.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. and gallant Friend told the House last week that he wanted to encourage housewives to preserve eggs at this season, and that housewives find that eggs for preserving cost 50 to 70 per cent. more than ordinary eggs?
    Dr. Hll: Following decontrol, the prices of both Grade A and Grade B eggs are less than they were immediately before decontrol and less than they were at the corresponding time the previous year, despite the disappearance of the subsidy.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is it not a fact that one can buy eggs at 3½d. each at this moment if they are bought by the dozen?
    Mrs. Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman know that eggs for preserving are not the usual eggs and that they must be a day old or not much more?

    Meat Importers (Payments)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food what payments are being made to meat importers to reimburse them for loss of profit; and for how long these payments will continue.
    Dr. Hill: The payments are for essential services rendered by the Meat Importers' National (Defence) Association Limited. They will cease when the Ministry of Food no longer needs these services.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my Question and say what payments are being made to meat importers and how much they amount to, and how long we shall continue to pay large sums to meat importers and distributors for not importing and not distributing meat? How long is this form of subsidy to continue?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question referred to the payments which are being made for loss of profit. As there are no such payments, there is no such element in my answer. The matter has been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, and it has been

    1153
    established that the cost to the Ministry of the essential services provided by these associations is less than it would be if they were provided under an organisation established by the Ministry for the purpose.
    Mr. Hoy: Did not the Public Accounts Committee have some comments to make about this form of trading, and did not the Ministry agree to look into the matter to see if the scheme could be wound up in the foreseeable future?
    Dr. Hill: The Public Accounts Committee investigated the matter. A Treasury Minute was put to the Public Accounts Committee, and I believe that the Minute awaits further consideration in the future.
    Mr. Royle: Is it not a fact that the Meat Importers' National (Defence) Association Limited are receiving compensation for loss of business by wholesalers prior to the war, and that throughout the war and since, that compensation has actually been paid?
    Dr. Hill: The body is receiving a sum of money for the aggregate services rendered, and the distribution of that sum is determined by the body itself. If hon. Gentlemen wish to know the total sum involved, I shall be happy to give them the answer if they will put down a Question.
    Mr. Nicholson: On a point of order. I understood my hon. Friend to say that a Treasury Minute was under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. I do not think it has been reported to the House. Is it not out of order to refer to such a matter when it has not been reported?
    Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman said is in order.

    Food Subsidies
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Food the total sum expended on food subsidies in the year 1952–53.
    Dr. Hill: About £332 million.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not that mean that there will be a cut in food subsidies in the current year of £112 million? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Chancellor indicated in his speech that the cut would be of the order of £30 million?
    Dr. Hill: We must make a distinction between the rate at which the subsidy is running and the actual subsidy for the whole year. This is the actual subsidy for the whole year, owing to a slower application of increased prices than was originally intended. I am sure the hon. Member is in no way dismayed that the figure for subsidy for the past year was higher than was earlier estimated.
    Mr. Beswick: That is the total actual expenditure, and the total amount allocated this year by the Chancellor is £220 million, which means that there will be a cut of £112 million. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the discrepancy between that figure and the figure given by the Chancellor?
    Dr. Hill: There is no discrepancy. At the end of the year subsidies—disregarding egg and cereal decontrol—were running at rather more than £250 million. That is the rate at the end of the year, not the total amount of the subsidy for the year, which is relevant to the Question.

    New Ration Books
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food why the new ration books contain six pages of coupons for tea and sweets and four other pages of coupons for purposes not disclosed.
    Dr. Hill: The decisions to deration tea and sweets were taken after the printing of the ration books had started. The other pages were included to deal with any emergency that might arise during the life of the ration books.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have had printed some 500 million pages of coupons which can only be justified on the assumption that tea and sweets may have to be rationed once again during the forthcoming year?
    Dr. Hill: There is no question of those two forms of rationing returning under the present Administration. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that the printing started almost a year ago —it had to. Secondly, disregarding the pages for re-registration, there is a saving of 10 pages this year compared with the number of pages last year.

    Bananas
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that in central London for the past fortnight there have been supplies of bananas on street barrows but none in shops and that these bananas have carried no price labels; that supplies have been more scarce in the provinces since decontrol; and if he will reintroduce price control to secure a more equitable system of distribution.
    Dr. Hill: Public demand appears to attract many of London's bananas on to the street barrows. However, the hon. Member exaggerates the effect of this; and my information is that the provinces are still getting their fair share. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that for the past 10 days, at all events, I have seen no prices on barrows stocking bananas in the London streets? Does he agree that it is a good result of Tory policy that bananas are sold at prohibitive prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "What prices?"] Prohibitive prices. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Coventry at least we have not had a fair supply of bananas since they were decontrolled?
    Dr. Hill: Price control distorts distribution, particularly in so far as it means that bananas will be found in the areas near the ports and not in those distant from the ports. Secondly, the ratio of distribution as between London and the provinces is the same as it was. The hon. Lady may be interested to know that in the four months to the end of March the supplies of bananas in this country were in excess of those in the corresponding months of the years before the war.

    DESERTERS (DOCUMENTATION)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will give an assurance that the Service documentation of deserters pardoned under the recent amnesty will be identical to the documentation of deserters who surrendered or were apprehended before the amnesty.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The documents issued to deserters
    1156
    granted the benefit of the recently announced amnesty will not be identical with those issued to deserters dealt with before the amnesty, since the circumstances are not comparable.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does not my hon. Friend think it rather unfair that a deserter who was apprehended or who surrendered before the amnesty now has his documents marked in such a way that he perhaps cannot find employment in a Government Department whereas the recently surrendered deserters under the amnesty have no such mark on their documents?
    Mr. Birch: It is not normal on discharge documents to say that a man has been a deserter unless he has a very bad character indeed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that there is some substance in the allegation made by the hon. and gallant Member that there is something in the document relating to the amnesty which might prevent a man from obtaining employment?
    Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that deserters dealt with before the amnesty might have had on their documents something which those dealt with under the amnesty would not have.
    Mr. Shinwell: Precisely. That is what I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say. Am I to understand that in one of the documents referred to there is something which might prevent a man from obtaining employment?
    Mr. Birch: A man who surrendered under the amnesty gets a protection certificate which ensures that he is not arrested for being a deserter; it is not a discharge document.
    Mr. Shinwell: Let us be quite clear about this. Are there two kinds of documents, and is there something contained in one of the documents which might prevent a man, because of a reference to his character, from obtaining employment? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. Birch: I have already said that the documents are different ones. The ordinary document which is the same as obtained under the dispensation of the

    1157
    right hon. Gentleman, does not normally say that the man has been a deserter except in very exceptional circumstances. Normally it gives his character on discharge. That is all that happens.

    UGANDA (MINING LABOUR ACCOMMODATION)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the dormitory system of accommodating labour is to be applied at the new copper mines at Kilembe, Uganda; and if he will instruct the Governor to insist upon a family system of accommodation.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Dormitory accommodation is interpreted in Uganda as meaning the housing of more than eight persons in one room. That is forbidden by the Uganda Employment Rules. I understand that the management of the mines at Kilembe intends to provide family accommodation for at least 60 per cent. of its staff.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with the Governor of Uganda, who I am sure will be sympathetic to the point of view that family accommodation is much more preferable, in order to prevent the introduction in Uganda of the segregation of sexes in the dormitory system that there is in South Africa?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member must not assume that all the employees of the Kilembe Mines will be married. Sixty per cent. of the accommodation will be married quarters, and we shall have to look a little later to see whether that is sufficient.

  WEST INDIES

    St. Lucia (Agricultural Development)
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an experienced agricultural officer has yet been appointed as development officer in St. Lucia.
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I am anxious that this post should be filled as soon as possible, but as I stated in reply to the
    1158
    hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) on 10th November, it is difficult to find a man with the requisite special experience of agriculture and development work in the tropics. Several people approached have declined or proved not to be available.
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to commence work on the new roads planned in connection with the proposed agricultural development of St. Lucia.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Grants from colonial development and welfare funds amounting to some £58,000 have been made for the construction and improvement of roads and tracks, and work has already begun. A further sum of £92,000 is earmarked for the same purpose.

    Castries (Reconstruction)
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the reconstruction of Castries; how far the costs have exceeded the estimates; and whether sufficient funds will be made available for this purpose.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The main work of rebuilding Castries is complete. The final costs will not be known for some time, but on present information there may be an excess over estimates of up to £130,000 which will be met from colonial development and welfare funds.

    Trinidad (Gomes Commission Report)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the findings in the Gomes Commission Report, he will instruct the Governor of Trinidad to take action to end corrupt practices in the Port of Spain City Council.
    Mr. Lyttelton: This is a matter for the Trinidad Government. In a letter to the Mayor of Port-of-Spain which was published with the Commission's Report, the Governor proposed safeguards against irregularities in municipal affairs on lines which have been generally accepted in this country. I understand that the city council have recently approved draft legislation substantially giving effect to these proposals.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Trinidad there is considerable feeling that people of influence are being sheltered, and will he insist that the findings of this Commission should be carried out, irrespective of influential positions which persons may hold?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member's allegations are entirely without foundation. My information is that whereas there was a suspicion that certain offences had been committed against the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution, and the Governor has proposed instead that existing legislation should be strengthened to provide for much more rigorous control over contract, audit, sale and leasing of land, tendering for supplies and supervision of expenditure, and draft legislation is in hand.

  NIGERIA

    Groundnut Marketing (Loss)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the loss of the Nigeria Groundnut Marketing Board on the 1951–52 crop on account of quality claims by the United Kingdom buyers; what was the loss in weight; and what was the loss as a result of insect attacks caused by long storage in Nigeria.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Out of the total sales of approximately £29 million quality claims amounting to £425,000 have been allowed to date. Not all by any means were due to long storage. Loss in weight is estimated to be less than half of 1 per cent. of the total crop. For the third part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11th March.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not the Minister aware that competent and experienced business men in Kano and Nigeria estimate this loss as something between £750,000 and £850,000? Does he not agree that the only solution to this urgent problem is to second personnel from British Railways to, shall we say, pep up or invigorate the transport system of Nigeria?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Regarding the estimates I can only give the most expert judgment, which is the figure I have given. With
    1160
    regard to the railway system, of course we inherited an extremely bad situation. Every measure has been taken to put it right and great improvements have been made, but there is much more to be done.
    Mr. Johnson: Will not the Minister agree that in the present disturbed political state in Nigeria it is very difficult to get people to go out on regular engagements? Would not it be better, as I said a moment ago, to second experienced staff and personnel to help the railways in their difficult ask?
    Mr. Lyttelton: As the hon. Member knows well, there is an African Minister of Transport and all these questions of the salaries to be paid by the Nigerian Government are matters for him and not for me. That is one of the things which governs this lack of necessary experts.

    Constitutional Situation
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the constitutional crisis in Nigeria, following upon the resignation of the Action Group members of the National Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the constitutional crisis in Nigeria which has led to the resignation of four Ministers from the Central Government and the vote of no confidence in the Government of the Eastern Assembly.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the dispute affecting certain Nigerian Ministers and their position in the Nigerian Legislature.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps will be taken to replace the Ministers who recently resigned from the Central Government in Nigeria.
    Mr. Lyttelton: A Private Member's Motion was tabled in the House of Representatives urging that the House should accept self-government in 1956 as a primary political objective. The Council of Ministers by a majority decided that members of the Government should abstain from speaking or voting on the Motion. The four Western Ministers

    1161
    disagreed with this decision and resigned. Their membership of the House of Representatives is not affected. Action will be taken, as provided in the constitution, in an attempt to fill the vacancies.
    The Governor reported to me in London last week on the whole situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who is now in Nigeria, will have an opportunity to hear at first hand the views of representatives of all three Regions. The situation in Nigeria is complicated. It will call for long and patient study. I do not expect to be able to make any further statement for some time.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, will he give the House an assurance that when the Minister of State does return he will give us a full statement of the situation? Secondly, since the main misunderstanding seems to be due to disputed versions of what did happen inside the Cabinet, and since Sir John Macpherson, the Governor, has spoken over the air and given his version, does not the Minister think it would be a good thing if an African Minister were to give his version over the air, someone like Mr. Nwapa or Mr. Arikpo?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I must answer the second part of the hon. Member's question in very distinct tones. It is against all the principles of collective responsibility and Cabinet Government that discussions of decisions reached in the Cabinet should be broadcast by the members whatever their views may be.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of Question No. 49, and also will he ask the Minister of State, whilst he is in Nigeria, to meet representatives of the Action Party and the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, and representatives of the northern area with a view to reaching agreement about the steps which are to be taken towards self-government?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman has set a very high target for my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will consult with everybody with whom it is necessary to consult in order to form a considered opinion upon this matter, but
    1162
    to expect that in this particularly difficult situation he would now be able to reach agreement is really asking too much.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has still not answered the second part of my Question.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot help that.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the very serious position, which in fact may be grave, does the right hon. Gentleman intend now to take some further action to try to avoid what otherwise might be severe tension between the three provincial areas? What does he think of the possibility of some revision of the existing constitution?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I would rather that the hon. Member did not press me on these matters. It may be that I am wrong, but my impression is that a little period of reflection to—if I may use a vulgarism —let the dust die down is probably necessary before we consider any other steps. Of course, I have my own ideas on how the matter should be handled.

    KENYA (MAU MAU ACTIVITIES)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a comprehensive statement on the troubles in Kenya.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I will take an early opportunity of making a statement.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that some, I do not say many, loyalists are leaving Kenya because they have no assurance of protection, even in the city of Nairobi, where another murder occurred in the last few days? Is it not time steps were taken to protect loyalists, both coloured and white, and so preserve and encourage their loyalty?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That supplementary question would seem to me to go very wide of the Question which the hon. and learned Member has on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Kikuyu have been shot whilst attempting to escape, or whilst resisting arrest, during the past six months.
    Mr. Lyttelton: During the past six months 430 Mau Mau terrorists have been shot while resisting arrest or while attempting to escape.
    Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the following paragraph appearing today in "The Times":
    "Strictly impartial justice and discipline, openly demonstrated, could do much to rally the wavering majority, torn between their fears of Mau Mau and of its repressors."
    Do not the figures which he has just given demonstrate the alarming lack of police discipline?
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. The figures I have quoted do not demonstrate that at all. In the circumstances the majority of the terrorists killed will always be found to be those who were resisting arrest. That is how the rebellion is evidenced. If the hon. Gentleman wishes an assurance from me that every measure will be taken to prevent indiscriminate shooting, I can give it to him.
    Mr. Paget: There is a high proportion of killed and a low proportion of wounded.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when he makes a comprehensive statement, which I hope will be soon, he will deal fairly fully with allegations made by some reputable journalists about the lack of discipline among the Forces? There is some concern about this.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Naturally. I think everyone else will be concerned about these allegations. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the allegations are supported by evidence that evidence will be taken, and any guilty person will be visited with severity. I must remain completely neutral on the matter until I have had evidence.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the area in which any one Home Guard unit in Kenya operates and patrols and the number of Kikuyu that have been killed by Home Guard units on such patrols and operations.
    Mr. Lyttelton: African Home Guard units are organised in the three Kikuyu districts and in the Embu and Meru
    1164
    districts. They operate in locations or sub-locations and work with the security forces in their area. Home Guard units in the towns are composed of all races; they are organised and patrol in sections and blocks. Information is not available about the number of terrorists killed by individual units. Forty-seven Mau Mau in all have been killed by Home Guards.
    Mr. Paget: What control is exercised over these Home Guards on patrol? How far do they go from their own villages?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give an accurate answer, but not very far. Many of the Home Guards operate under static conditions and play a static role.
    Mr. Paget: Will the Minister take care to see that these Home Guards really are Home Guards and do not operate as marauding gangs, which is the danger?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I must resist at once the hon. and learned Member's allegation that they act as marauding gangs. There is no justification for such an innuendo.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received desiring him to appoint a general in Kenya with powers similar to those of General Templer in Malaya; and what action he is taking in this direction.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Member himself suggested that Sir Gerald Templer should be transferred to Kenya. No other representations to that effect have been made to me, though similar suggestions have occasionally appeared in newspapers here. General Hinde has been given authority over all officers of Government in carrying out the Governor's policy of dealing with the emergency and is solely responsible for the operational control of all the forces of law and order. No other change is contemplated.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the powers that have been granted to the emergency committee set up in Kenya under the chairmanship of the Governor.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Committee has no executive powers but advises the Governor on all aspects of the emergency. The responsibility remains with the Governor.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, while doing everything possible to suppress Mau Mau, he will see that the ordinary forms of British justice are preserved and, in particular, will he say he deprecates such barbarous practices as public hangings which have been advocated by some people in Kenya?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman has gone very wide of the Question he has on the Order Paper. There is no public hanging, as he knows perfectly well.

    KUALA LUMPUR (FRANCHISE)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the population of Kuala Lumpur; the number of people paying rates in the town; the number on the electoral roll; and the percentage of the town council elected by ballot vote.
    Mr. Lyttelton: At the last census, in 1947, the population of Kuala Lumpur was 175,961. Two-thirds of the municipal council are elected members. I am asking the High Commissioner for the other information and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Awbery: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about the number on the electoral roll, and can he say whether any steps are being taken to enlarge the list and widen the qualifications for election?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The franchise extends to anyone of 21 or over who is a subject of the Sultan of Selangor, a Federal citizen or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born in Malaya, provided that he has lived in the Federation for at lease three years, of which one of the two immediately preceding years should have been spent in the municipality. The franchise is not confined to ratepayers.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly how the franchise has been made up and what activities have taken place to ensure that all people entitled to be on the electoral roll are recorded on the roll?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member will have to put that question on the paper. I have given a full account of how the franchise is exercised.

    NYASALAND (COLOUR BAR)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was on his authority that the Provincial Commissioner for the Southern Province of Nyasaland officially advised the chairman of the Nyasaland Hotel Keepers' Association to send a circular letter to all Nyasaland hotel keepers on the subject of serving Africans in hotels and bars.
    Mr. Lyttelton: This matter falls fully within the Governor's discretion and my authority was neither sought nor needed. The Governor has informed me that on his instructions the Provincial Commissioner has recently and semi-officially sought the aid of a leading representative of the Nyasaland hotel keepers in preserving good race relations.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it helps to preserve good race relations to take action which is expressly stated to be to expedite the exodus of Africans from hotels as rapidly as possible and to stop what is called, "this form of unpleasantness," namely their arrival in hotels?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know what document the right hon. Gentleman is reading from. My information is that on the whole the appeals have been responded to by the hotel people.
    Mr. Dugdale: I am reading from the letter sent out by the chairman of the Hotel Keepers' Association stating that it was sent out on the advice of the Provincial Commissioner.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman will have to lay the letter and put a Question on the Paper.

    WORLD PEACE (PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S DECLARATION)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister what progress he has been able to make since 31st March in improving the atmosphere in international affairs, and in arranging a meeting with Mr. Malenkov.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on Monday in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the

    1167
    Acting Leader of the Opposition, when I commented on President Eisenhower's recent declaration.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there are millions of people not satisfied with that statement? Is not it now time, after his earlier promises, that he himself should do more than just pat the Americans on the back? Has this nation not got a right to expect the Prime Minister to have something to say?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid—I do not want to be unfair—but I am afraid I must leave this to be settled between the hon. Member, who is seeking political advancement, and the Acting Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Shinwell—
    The Prime Minister: You are the Leader now, are you?
    Mr. Shinwell: I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should be so nasty. I merely want to ask him a question which may interest him. Perhaps he had better wait for the question before he indulges in these rude interjections. In any case, they do not affect me much. While not wishing to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in the present delicate state of affairs, would he not reassure at any rate a section of public opinion by giving an assurance that he will not leave the initiative entirely in the hands of the United States?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think, looking back over a long period in peace and war, I have ever, as far as I had anything to say in matters, been willing to accept the complete initiative from the United States. I am most anxious that we should work with them, and indeed it is vital to the survival of the free world that we should, but at the same time we certainly should make our opinion felt—
    Mr. Dodds: That is what we want.
    The Prime Minister: —and our weight count as far as we can, and I do not think that the course I have adopted has in any way diminished the influence we have had upon affairs.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that was precisely the answer that we
    1168
    expected, but if the question had not been put a section of public opinion would require reassurance in the matter? Does not he realise now that it was desirable that such a question should be put?
    The Prime Minister: I do not see any harm in the question the right hon. Gentleman has put, but I do not think the other one was necessary in any way.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: While appreciating the statement made by the Prime Minister on Monday, and remembering that during the war he took the initiative on several occasions in bringing together President Roosevelt, Mr. Stalin and others, may I ask whether he does not think the time has arrived when he should take a similar initiative to use a similar influence?
    The Prime Minister: I do really think that it would not be good for me to try to answer that question now.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he himself some years ago made a statement as to what he would do if he got the power? He has had it for 18 months and he has done nothing in that respect.
    The Prime Minister: I did not get the power to regulate the way in which the affairs of the world would go. I only got the power to preside over a party which has been able to beat the Opposition in Divisions for 18 months.

    PERSIAN GULF SHEIKDOMS (FRONTIERS)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the situation now developing in the Buraimi Oasis.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement made on 2nd April by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that a serious situation is developing in this area, and that, behind this boundary dispute, lies a conflict of old interests between Britain and America? In view of the recent talks which the Foreign Secretary of Saudi Arabia has had in Washington, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the United States is giving us full diplomatic support in this serious matter?
    The Prime Minister: This is a question of treaty rights and other long-established interests, about which a dispute has arisen between us and Saudi Arabia, and actions—conflicts—of a violent, though happily not a lethal character, have taken place. But we have made it perfectly clear that we will willingly accept the process of fair arbitration. I always thought that that was the way things should be settled, if possible, between civilised and well-meaning States and peoples, and that is our position. We cannot be pushed out of every right we have just because violence is used to us and because offers of arbitration are rejected.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Saudi Arabian Government have openly flouted the standstill agreement and that our rights in this matter are being completely ignored? In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary of that country has recently been in Washington having talks with President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what diplomatic support we are getting from the United States of America in dealing with a situation which can develop in serious ways?
    The Prime Minister: I think we must leave our case on its merits to arbitration, which we offer. I am really quite unable to be quite sure what side of the matter the hon. Lady is on. If she is asking me what help we are getting from the United States, I do not consider that every matter which affects British rights must necessarily be considered only in relation to the support we get from the United States.
    Mrs. Castle—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is after half past three.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, it is quite clear that he has totally misunderstood my question and also totally misunderstands—
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady is rising to a point of order, I wish she would tell me what it is.
    Mrs. Castle: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot make myself heard. My point of order is this. In view of the fact that, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, he has clearly misunderstood my question and also totally misunderstands what is happening in this area—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, the hon. Lady has disclosed no point of order. Does the hon. Lady wish to give notice that she proposes to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir.
    The Prime Minister: May I say—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If we are to have points of order, let us take them one at a time.
    Mr. Shinwell: The question addressed by my hon. Friend behind me was disposed of, and I understand that, now that it is after half-past three, Questions are also disposed of. Will you therefore keep the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in order?
    Mr. Speaker: I have no idea what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was going to say.
    The Prime Minister: May I ask your indulgence and the indulgence of the House? I should like to express my regret if in any way I have misunderstood the position of the hon. Lady. If, as I hope, we are on the same side in the matter, I should like it very much.

BILL PRESENTED
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL
  "to provide for the federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Lyttelton; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Eden, Mr. Hopkinson and Mr. Foster; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill
be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 227.

Division No. 141.]

AYES

[3.38 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E.

Linstead, H. N.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Erroll, F. J.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Alport, C. J. M.

Fell, A.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Finlay, Graeme

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Fisher, Nigel

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. G.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Longden, Gilbert

Arbuthnot, John

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Low, A. R. W.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Fort, R.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Baldwin, A. E.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O

Banks, Col. C.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McAdden, S. J.

Barber, Anthony

Gammans, L. D.

McCallum, Major D.

Barlow, Sir John

Gamer-Evans, E. H.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Baxter, A. B.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

McKibbin, A. J.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Godber, J. B.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Maclean, Fitzroy

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Gough, C. F. H.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Gower, H. R.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Birch, Nigel

Grimond, J.

Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Bishop, F. P.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Black, C. W.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Markham, Major S. F.

Bossom, A. C.

Harden, J. R. E.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Bowen, E. R.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Marples, A. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Braine, B. R.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Maude, Angus

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Maudling, R.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

Broooman-White, R. C.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Heald, Sir Lionel

Mellor, Sir John

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

Heath, Edward

Molson, A. H. E.

Bullard, D. G.

Henderson, John (Catheart)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nabarro, G. D. N

Campbell, Sir David

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholls, Harmar

Carr, Robert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Holt, A. F.

Nutting, Anthony

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hope, Lord John

Oakshott, H. D.

Clyde,Rt. Hon. J. L.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Odey, G. W.

Cole, Norman

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Colegate, W. A.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Cooper Sqn.Ldr. Albert

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hurd, A. R.

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

Osborne, C.

Crookshank, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark(Eb'rgh W.)

Partridge, E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Crouch, R. F.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

Jennings, R.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A

Davidson, Viscountess

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Pitman, I. J.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Powell, J. Enoch

De la Bère, Sir Rupert

Kaberry, D.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Deedes, W. F.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Profumo, J. D.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Kerr, H. W.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Redmayne, M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lambton, Viscount

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Donner, P. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Renton, D. L. M.

Drayson, G. B.

Leather, E. H. C.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Robson-Brown, W.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Duthie, W. S.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Roper, Sir Harold

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M

Lindsay, Martin

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Russell, R. S.

Storey, S.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Summers, G. S.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Schofield, Lt-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Scott, R. Donald

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Watkinson, H. A.

Shepherd, William

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Wellwood, W.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Snadden, W. McN.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Soames, Capt. C.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Tilney, John

Wills, G.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Turner, H. F. L.

Wood, Hon. R.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Turton, R. H.

York, C.

Stevens, G. P.

Vane, W. M. F.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Vosper, D. F.

Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Wade, D. W.

NOES

Albu, A. H.

Forman, J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Freeman, John (Watford)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Awbery, S. S.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Bacon, Miss Alice

Gibson, C. W.

Manuel, A. C.

Balfour, A.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mason, Roy

Bartley, P.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mayhew, C. P.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Grenfell, Rl. Hon. D. R.

Mellish, R. J.

Bence, C. R.

Grey, C. F.

Messer, F.

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Beswick, F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Moody, A. S

Blenkinsop, A.

Hale, Leslie

Morley, R.

Blyton, W. R.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Boardman, H.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hamilton, W. W.

Mort, D. L.

Bowden, H. W.

Hannan, W.

Moyle, A.

Bowles, F. G.

Hargreaves, A.

Mulley, F. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Murray, J. D.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Hastings, S.

Nally, W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Oswald, T.

Burks, W. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hobson, C. R.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Holman, P.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Callaghan, L. J.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Carmichael, J.

Hoy, J. H.

Pannell, Charles

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Paton, J.

Chapman, W. D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pearson, A.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Clunie, J.

Hynd, H. (Acorington)

Poole, C. C.

Collick, P. H.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Porter, G.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Greeen)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Janner, B.

Pryde, D. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jay, Rt. Hon D. P. T.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rankin, John

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Reeves, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Deer, G.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Rhodes, H.

Donnelly, D. L.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Keenan, W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Edelman, M.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Ross, William

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

King, Dr. H. M.

Royle, C.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Kinley, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Short, E. W.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Lewis, Arthur

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Fernyhough, E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Fienburgh, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Finch, H. J.

Logan, D. G.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

MacColl, J. E.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Follick, M.

Mclnnes, J.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Foot, M. M.

McLeavy, F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

1174

1175

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Willey, F. T.

Snow, J. W.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Williams, David (Neath)

Sorensen, R. W.

Thornton, E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Sparks, J. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Timmons, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Usborne, H. C.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Viant, S. P.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Wallace, H. W.

Wyatt, W. L.

Taylor, Barnard (Mansfield)

Wells, Percy (Faversharn)

Yates, V. F.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

While, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Mr. Popplewell and

Thomas, lvor Owen (Wrekin)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Question agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  REPORT [14th April]
  Resolutions reported.
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14 th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 62–70.]
  WAYS AND MEANS [20th April]
  Resolution reported,

  AMENDMENT OF LAW
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this resolution shall not extend to the making of amendments of the law relating to purchase tax except amendments, if any,—

  (a) making the same provision for or in respect of chargeable goods of whatever description; or

  (b) relating to the administration or enforcement of the enactments relating to the tax; or

  (c) reducing any of the rates of the tax generally for all goods to which that rate applies.

  Resolution read a Second time.
  Resolution reported,

  EXCESS PROFITS LEVY (PERIOD OF CHARGE)
  That it is expedient to authorise all such charges to the excess profits tax as may arise
  1178
  from bringing the period of charge to the levy to an end not earlier than the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-three.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and agreed to this day and upon the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to on 20th April, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

  FINANCE BILL
  "to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

  TRANSPORT BILL
  Order read for further consideration of Lords Amendments.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, "That further con sideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
  As hon. Members opposite are in such good voice, no doubt they will be able to add their contribution to this debate in view of the strange silence that we had from them yesterday. I rise to move this Motion in view of events which have developed since the debate in the House yesterday with regard to the United Dominions Trust. Mr. Gibson Jarvie, commenting, according to "The Times" today, on last night's debate says:
  "The United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister, is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for the specific purpose of financing potential buyers of transport units desirous of getting back into the haulage business."
  Hon. Members: Jobs for the boys.
  Mr. Callaghan: He goes on to say that:
  "Any directors, representatives or other employees of the United Dominions Trust discussing this matter with potential haulage contractors were merely bringing to their notice facilities which would be available if and when the Transport Bill becomes an Act."
  We had a long debate yesterday on the United Dominions Trust and its activities in the country. After some remonstration by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the Minister half-heartedly condemned some of the activities of the United Dominions Trust. The part that he half-heartedly condemned was the approach that was being made by members of the United Dominions Trust staff, and indeed by one of their directors, to employees of the Road Haulage Executive in order to in form them of the credit facilities that would be waiting for them when the Bill became law and also, at the same time, to secure such information as they could about the existing activities of the Road Haulage Executive. The second part the Minister half-heartedly condemned.
  1180
  I want to say to the Minister that, throughout the whole course of our long debate he gave no intimation of any sort that he had anything to do with the United Dominions Trust. He did not intimate to us whether he had any relations with them or not. He certainly did not intimate to us that they were going into the formation of this company with his full knowledge and approval. There fore, I think that it is fitting that the Minister should take the opportunity that is now being provided for him to make an explanation to the House of what consultations, if any, he had with the United Dominions Trust, how far his full knowledge and approval runs of their activities, and whether he was aware of the approaches that were being made to the staff of the Road Haulage Executive.
  There is one further question of policy. Yesterday we spent a long time writing into the Bill provisions which were sup posed ostensibly to strengthen the position of the small man in the industry, to pre vent the concentration of the industry into too few hands—or words that were substituted for that particular phrase. At the same time, the Minister told us that he could give no guarantee that once these units were sold to the small man they could not be gathered or amalgamated into larger units. Indeed, he could not give such a guarantee because he knew of the activities of the United Dominions Trust, or, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know, Mr. Gibson Jarvie is wrong when he says that he was acting with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: That seems to be a possibility. I am afraid that I could not accept that Motion as it is a dilatory Motion. It means going back to what we discussed yesterday and this morning at some length. Also, because someone says some thing which appears in a newspaper that would not justify me in accepting a Motion to adjourn further consideration of the Lords Amendments. If the hon. Member is raising a point of criticism against the Minister because, if I followed him aright, of some lack of can dour or something of that sort, he should put down a Motion to that effect and have it discussed. He cannot interrupt the proceedings on the Bill on that matter.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: May I very respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that what is now before the House on the initiative of my hon. Friend is a new circumstance, a new fact, a new allegation. The Minister yesterday did not betray any knowledge of the activities of the United Dominions Trust organisation; he certainly did not admit that he had knowledge of what they were doing and that he had given them approval in what they were doing, and this allegation is now made by the chairman of the Trust in "The Times." I submit that this is a new and material consideration, and in the interests of the Minister himself, whose personal honour is involved, and in the interests of the healthiness of our Parliamentary and Governmental life, this matter should be thrashed out.
  In fact, when my hon. Friend saw me about the matter earlier, I was in two minds whether to advise him to raise it under Standing Order No. 9; there was something of a case so to do. We do not wish to bring this up merely for the sake of bringing it up; it is strictly relevant to the argument which was adduced yesterday; it is a new factor made on the declaration, not of an irresponsible individual, but of the chairman of the Trust, and I submit that in so far as the personal reputation and honour of the Minister are concerned, it is right and reasonable and is fair to the Minister that we should be able to debate this matter.
  Moreover, my Scottish colleagues inform me that a special organisation has been set up in Scotland as well, and I submit that this is a matter of sufficient seriousness for it to be wise to get it cleared up by a suitable Parliamentary discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: The business before the House is the consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill which has, apart from these Amendments, already passed both Houses of Parliament. This is not a stage in the Bill. This is the consideration of Amendments to a Bill which has already passed. I do not see how the circumstances alleged by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) affect the business before us today. If there is a matter for criticism arising out of the statement in the news paper on which the hon. Member bases
  1182
  his account, that must be taken up as a separate matter. It does not affect our business today. Therefore, I could not accept that Motion. I can find nothing in the precedents or in the Standing Orders which would entitle me to do so.
  Mr. Morrison: There is another point, Mr. Speaker. The first Amendment which I propose to move presently is related to the organised future of the present constituent elements of the Road Haulage Executive; the future of all these units of the Road Haulage Executive is involved. In so far as the United Dominions Trust has been involved in their future, I presume that it will be legitimate to mention it in connection with this new Amendment. I may have to do so, Sir, but I should have thought that it was better and more convenient to clear this concrete issue out of the way.
  I say, without any wish to be abusive or unkind but for the sake of the personal reputation of the Minister, that it would be better to deal with this matter ad hoc and clear it out of the way before we come to that Amendment, which is relevant to what happened yesterday and to what is in "The Times" this morning.
  Mr. Speaker: In so far as these matters are relevant to any of the Amendments which will come before us in the course of today's discussion, of course they can be mentioned. As regards the second point, namely, that an accusation has been made against the Minister, I would of course allow the Minister, as I would any other hon. Member of the House, to make a personal statement on his own position. I would allow that to any Member of the House whose integrity was impugned even in the slightest degree. So I will give that permission if it is required.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the Ruling which you gave to my right hon. Friend a few minutes ago, you stated that we are dealing with a Bill that has already passed. I want to submit that, no doubt inadvertently, you gave an incorrect statement of the position. The Bill has not passed. It has been given a Second Reading in this House. It has passed through certain proceedings in another place and certain Amendments have been proposed, and the House is

  1183
  now being asked to consider whether discussion of the Bill shall proceed. The Bill has not, therefore, passed. It will not pass until the House has decided one way or the other what it will do with a great many of the Amendments now on the Paper.
  I understand that what my right hon. Friend sought to do was to say this: since the matter was last before the House, new facts have come to light which, if they are right—of course, they may be wrong —appear to show that the House is being invited by the Minister to proceed with the discussion of these Amendments on an entirely false basis, the basis that we are proposing to do certain things with what is now national property when, in fact, secretly and without telling the House about it, he has entered into private arrangements with United Dominions Trust in order to deal with these national assets in quite another way than he was inviting the House to deal with them yesterday and will invite the House to deal with them today. Surely the House is entitled to have that matter cleared up before we proceed?
  Mr. Speaker: In reply to the first point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), if he consults the Journals of the House for the day on which this Bill was read the Third time here, he will see it entered there as "Read the Third time, and passed." So the Bill has passed this House. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious point. The Bill has also gone to another place and has been amended there, and we are now consider ing Amendments, but what I am anxious to point out to the House is that we are dealing with Lords Amendments, and this is a different position from an ordinary stage in the procedure of a Bill through this House.
  We are dealing with a Bill to which, in the main, the House has given its assent. Therefore, our discussion must be relevant to the precise points which are set down for us for our consideration. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention. I think that, in view of the circumstances and what has been said, it would be the general desire of the House to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Needless to say, I think this will be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am very glad to have this opportunity of making a statement, and I may add that I think it is very unlikely that anything said from the Opposition benches at any time is likely to frighten, shame or embarrass me. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to hear an answer to the very serious charges that have been made, I hope they will allow me to give it. Very strong language has been used about me in comparison with which my rather mild observations were singularly inoffensive. I take it that the particular objection that has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is to a statement issued last night by Mr. Gibson Jarvie, the chairman of the United Dominions Trust, and reported in "The Times" today. I quote from the actual report in "The Times":
  "The United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister"—
  I take it that the important words are "with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister"—
  "is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for the specific purpose of financing potential buyers of transport units desirous of getting back into the haulage business."
  I say straight away that that statement of Mr. Gibson Jarvie is absolutely correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Perhaps hon. Members opposite will allow me to develop my argument. It would be a rather novel procedure if very extravagant charges could be made to which the answer was almost inaudible.
  If hon. Members objected to this particular machinery—the creation of a special company between the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association to finance the purchase of transport units—they should have objected when, on 5th February, almost every national newspaper carried this news. All that Mr. Gibson Jarvie has done is to say that the creation of this company, involving, as it does, matters of financial consideration, is done with the knowledge and approval of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  It seems to me that if hon. Gentlemen would care to turn up the public print of Thursday, 5th February, they would find

  1185
  in almost every newspaper references of this kind:
  "Mr. Jarvie will help set the lorries free."
  I must confess that I was rather surprised that I was not asked a lot of questions about it then, but it struck me that hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that, this being one of the popular moves to facilitate the discharge of the intentions of the Bill, they would be politically unwise to draw attention to it.
  Mr. H. Morrison Mr. H. Morrison rose—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must finish my sentence. The statement issued by the—
  Mr. E. Shinwell Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, it is quite out of order for any other hon. Member to occupy the Floor.
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is it not well within the traditions of this House that when a Minister is making a statement—even a personal explanation— and something is said by him which appears to be inconsistent—I do not put it higher than that—a question may properly be addressed to him? Is there anything unruly or out of order in that?
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order in that. The point is that it is in the discretion of the hon. Member or the right hon. Member who has the Floor of the House whether or not he gives way, and if he, the Member who has the Floor of the House, does not give way it is quite out of order for any other Member to continue to stand. I would add that we are now dealing with a personal statement, and in my memory of the House it has always been their desire to hear such a statement in silence.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, with reference to what you have just said, is it not also a tradition of the House—within Rulings given by you and many of your predecessors—that a personal statement should not contain contentious matter?
  Mr. Speaker: It should not, as far as it can be avoided; but one must take every case on its merits.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be more convenient for the House if you were now to accept my Motion that further consideration of the Lords Amendments be adjourned, in order that we may debate this matter, instead of the Minister sheltering behind a personal statement?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not at all proper. I have already given my reasons why I cannot find myself justified in accepting the hon. Gentleman's Motion. It would be contrary to every precedent and practice of which I am aware. If, when hon. Members hear the Minister's statement—to which they should listen—they are not satisfied with it, they have all the resources of Parliamentary practice at their command to take up the matter again, when it will be the subject of debate. At present the Minister's conduct is not the main subject of debate; it is the Lords Amendments.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was on the point of reading the statement issued on 5th February. I was anxious to present what appears to me to be an absolutely unanswerable case in a connected way. That is why I did not give way to hon. Members opposite. I hope I am known well enough in this House not to be thought unready to give way to hon. Gentlemen from either side of the House, if it is within the rules of order, when I am making a personal statement. When I come to the end of my narrative, I am quite ready to sit down, but in order that it shall be intelligible and to enable hon. Members to come to a fair conclusion on the matter, I thought it better to make my statement in a connected form.
  I have drawn attention to the fact that on 5th February almost every newspaper —the "Daily Mail," the "Manchester Guardian," the "News Chronicle," the "Financial Times," "The Times," the "Daily Express" and no doubt many others—carried a statement to this effect. They made their own comments on it, but the statement issued by the Road Haulage Association, Reference R.H./ PR210—from their office on 4th February —Press Notice of the Road Haulage Association—read as follows:
  "Financing the Purchase of Transport Units —Arrangements concluded between the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust.

  1187
  As the result of negotiations by the Road Haulage Association, arrangements have now been made for financial facilities to be made available to purchasers of transport units once the Transport Bill has been passed. The Association and the United Dominions Trust will set up a finance company for the special purpose of providing such facilities. Attractive rates of interest are to be charged on loans for the purchase of buildings and other assets such as vehicles and plant. Subject to the necessary Government consent advances for assets other than buildings will normally be repayable over a period of three to five years; advances specifically for buildings will be repayable over a longer period. The Road Haulage Association understand from inquiries that advances will also be available through other normal channels."
  When I was asked about the wholly correct and proper activities of the United Dominions Trust in setting up this company in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, and what the Government had done about it, I said that the Government had given no special privileges to the United Dominions Trust in this matter and that it was open, and still is, to any other finance house that cares to make its own arrangement with the Road Haulage Association and gets their consent.
  This is a matter over which the Government have no influence, and do not wish to have any influence, or to do anything themselves. I am delighted that the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association have come to this highly sensible arrangement, and no one could conceive that a financial transaction of this kind could possibly be carried out without Government knowledge and approval.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so yesterday?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because it is surely self-evident. If it would have been possible under the late Labour Government for that sort of thing to be set up without Government approval, it shows what an extraordinarily incompetent control it was.
  In conclusion, I hope I may be pardoned a certain amount of indignation in view of the charges which have been made. I had intended to say that, as far as I could see, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had discovered a mare's nest, but I am quite happy to put myself
  1188
  behind the phrase used by Mr. Gibson Jarvie, "transparent nonsense."
  Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Speaker: We shall make no progress if hon. Members continue vociferating at each other. Let us take one thing at a time.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not desirable, in the interests of the House—
  Mr. William Ross: And of the Minister.
  Mr. Shinwell: —and of the Minister that the point at issue should be clarified? On 5th February reference was made to this matter. Did he then, when this organisation was created, give his approval to its creation? He has not said so. He said the organisation was established then, but he did not find it necessary to give his approval—not at that time. On 5th February, then, there was not the same full knowledge of and approval given to the creation of the scheme as has now been given. Is that the position? Surely the Minister can elucidate that point, because that is the point at issue. Why did he not yesterday inform the House of what had been done? Why does he now hide behind an ambiguous statement which was made on 5th February?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite prepared to answer that. Of course, when we were anxious about the provision of credit facilities, I had to consider in advance—planning ahead is not a bad maxim for a good Government—what would be the best form of providing credit facilities. It was suggested that some structure of this kind would be suitable, and, before the Press announcement was made, naturally full approval both of the Minister of Transport and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—naturally; we do work together nowadays—was given. Hundreds of Questions have been asked since 5th February, and I should have been delighted to answer any one on that particular matter had any hon. Member put it down.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister why he did not have the candour, when

  1189
  he referred to the United Dominions Trust yesterday, to tell us of his knowledge of these facts? Why did he specifically—I refer to column 898—when he referred to the matter of the Dominions Trust, tell us nothing when he deprecated part of their activities? Why did he not say that he had had consultation with them and that he knew something of what was going on? Why did he not tell us at that stage that he had given his authority and approval to its activities? Secondly, may I ask him why he went to the trouble of writing into the Bill the provisions for no concentration in too few hands when these small companies are obviously going to be no more than the financial marionettes dancing to Mr. Gibson Jarvie's tune?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There was a slightly new point in something which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. That being so, I am quite prepared to answer it. What I deprecate is using this opportunity of my personal statement and subsequent supplementaries to make other underhand charges against the United Dominions Trust. I did not myself deprecate their activities. What I said was that if they approached the people in the employment of the Road Haulage Executive or visited depots of the Road Haulage Executive, I naturally agreed with the action of the British Transport Commission in saying that visits or inquiries of that kind should be referred first to the Commission and that it would be the Commission's duty to decide whether the inquiry or the visit was entirely proper.
  As to why I did not say repeatedly yesterday that the formation of this new company, which is in process of construction, was with full Government approval, it seems to me that it must be a very naive Member of the House of Commons who believes that an organisation of this kind could be set up without Treasury approval.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I think I have just one point to raise.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): On a point of order. May I have your guidance upon this point, Mr. Speaker? When a personal imputation is made upon the honour of a Member and is shown to be unfounded, is it not in accordance with the traditions of the
  1190
  House and of decency that it should be withdrawn?
  Mr. Speaker: If I may say so with becoming modesty, I think the discussion we have had shows the wisdom of my original suggestion that if this issue of the Minister's conduct in the matter is to be raised, it should be examined in another way and in another spirit. It is a very serious thing to make charges against any hon. Member. Even the most humble and remote of us have our own feelings in these matters, and I am very anxious to protect Members against imputations which may be harmful or hurtful to them.
  That is why I have allowed this discussion to go on, but I suggest to the House, with all the vigour I can, that we ought to proceed with our business. There are obviously two sides to this matter. Evidently what the Minister has said carries conviction with a lot of his Friends, it may be on both sides of the House, but evidently there are some who disagree with him. But how can we settle it now? Let Members think about it and remember that what they are talking about is the conduct of one of themselves.
  Mr. Morrison: As I was saying, there is one point upon which I seek enlightenment. If I may say so, I think the Attorney-General has taken on a new function, and if I may give him some advice, as one who has had longer experience, it would be that he should not take on these jobs. This discussion can, of course, proceed under an Amendment or possibly otherwise, and it must continue for everybody's sake, but what I wish to ask the Minister is this: he has apparently agreed that a special arrangement was made—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No.
  Mr. Morrison: —with a particular undertaking or company or trust, with his knowledge and approval and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have every right to ask why he did not divulge this yesterday, but I go further than that: I want to know why, when a particular arrangement was made with a particular trust or company and the Road Haulage Association for given ends on an act of public policy of great importance, the House of Commons was not immediately informed. Will the Minister tell us?
  4.30 p.m.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I desire to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Minister of Transport—
  Mr. Speaker: In order to save the hon. Member's time, I would point out to him that he is too late for that now. We are already in public business, and a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 must be moved at the commencement of business.
  Mr. Silverman: I have difficulty in understanding how I can be too late in asking your leave to move a Motion which I have not yet read out, how I can be too late in asking leave to move when the circumstances—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has sufficiently identified his Motion for my purpose by saying that he is moving it under Standing Order No. 9.
  Mr. Silverman: I fail to understand, Sir, how I can be too late in asking your permission to move that Motion when the Standing Order clearly implies that the Motion must be moved early and when the circumstances which gave rise to it have only just been told to the House by the Minister concerned. I was on my feet in order to move the Motion as soon as the Minister had made his statement and answered supplementary questions with regard to it, and it is a little difficult to see how I could have asked leave earlier. The matter has only just arisen.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at the order of business on page 332 of Erskine May, he will see that after Questions to Ministers come the introduction of new Members, Adjournment Motion under Standing Order No. 9—that is where the hon. Member should come in—and business taken after any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 under which comes Motions for leave of absence, giving notice of Motions and holding of Ballot, Ministerial statements, personal explanations, etc. As a matter of fact, we have entered upon the Orders of the Day, so that the earliest
  1192
  opportunity that the hon. Member has for raising the matter under Standing Order No. 9 is tomorrow.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not think many hon. Members have yet realised that we have entered upon the Orders of the Day. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you had ruled that the Motion which preceded entering upon the Orders of the Day was not acceptable to you, and thereupon the Minister proceeded to make a personal statement.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member consults the Order Paper he will see that the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions are set out upon it. The first Order of the Day was Ways and Means [Report]. That we have done. Then there was a second Ways and Means [Report] which we have also done, and brought in the Finance Bill. We have dealt with the University of St. Andrews Bill. Those are all Orders of the Day, and, therefore, we have entered upon them, and a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 is too late today.
  Mr. Silverman: I quite realised all the time that the preliminary Orders of the Day had been disposed of, but the Minister has made a personal statement. If I am out of order in seeking to move this Motion merely because the personal statement was made at a time when the Minister had no right to make it, that seems a little hard on me. If we are to treat the Minister's statement as a personal statement, then surely we must treat it as having been made in its proper place. An attempt to move the Adjournment of the House, as under the paragraph from Erskine May to which you drew attention, has to follow statements by Ministers and personal statements, of which this was one. In those circumstances, I again ask that I may be allowed to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I must rule against the hon. Member. I have told him so, and I must now ask the House to proceed to the business which is ordered for today. Hon. Members, having heard both sides of this matter, must form their own conclusions on it, and if they desire to proceed with it further they must find a proper occasion. I will ask the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to move the Amendment which stands in his name.
  Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of order. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not succeeded in persuading you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9; but you have given your Ruling, and, of course, my hon. Friend and the rest of us accept it. I wonder if the problem could be solved in this way. When I said that the personal honour of the Minister was involved, I meant it. That is not an allegation; that is a question which has to be answered. My hon. Friend is in the same category, and therefore neither he nor I have anything whatever to withdraw.
  Would not the best course be for the Chief Whip or some other Minister—the Attorney-General, it may be—to move the Adjournment of the House in order that we may have a brief discussion about it and clear the matter up, as otherwise it will inevitably, and I submit quite properly, come into the discussion on the first Amendment and will confuse the issue? I put it to the Government Front Bench or the Leader of the House to consider whether it would not be wise to move the Adjournment of the House in order to let us have a short exchange and then get back to the Order Paper.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I thought that this matter would have been settled after the personal statement made by my right hon. Friend. He explained the circumstances of the case and carried the assent certainly of all those who sit on this side of the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible to move the Adjournment of the House for a short time in order that the matter could be further pursued. The Government are quite prepared to move that Motion if, Mr. Speaker, you will accept it.
  Mr. Speaker: Very well.
  Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. Morrison: Who goes first? [Interruption.] When hon. Members opposite are ready, we will proceed. The only reason I asked "Who goes first?" was in case the Minister wished to re-state his defence. I wish to be fair to him. Let the Attorney-General behave himself and remember that in my experience it is customary for Law Officers of the Crown on the Government Front Bench to remember that they are Law Officers.
  The Attorney-General: It is precisely because I am a Law Officer and have the high traditions of the law in my mind that I made the intervention I did about the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that, from our short experience of the Attorney-General, who occupies a high tradition as a Law Officer, as a judicial officer and as a high person at the Bar, we in this House regard him more as a politician than as a judicial officer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has rendered a good service, I think, to Parliament and to the community, and I honestly believe that he has rendered a good service to the Minister of Transport, by enabling this matter to be ventilated today. [Interruption.] It does not matter if the Conservative Party have had orders to go out. The House of Commons will be an even more respectable institution without them than with them.
  Let us be clear about the events. It is said by the Minister that in the early part of February a statement was made that an arrangement had been reached between the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust whereby acquisitions would be made out of the dissolving road haulage constituent parts of the British Transport Commission. That was all that was said, that some arrangement of that kind had been made, and that they considered it as a commercial and business proposition to be a good and sensible thing.
  We live partly in a world of socialised industry and partly in a world of capitalist private enterprise and free competition, and in so far as we live in a world of capitalist free enterprise and competition the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association have, I presume, a right to make certain arrangements. I deny, however, that they have a right to go poking about and messing about with public officers of a public corporation to find out information, as was exposed yesterday.
  However, as part of their private enterprise, these two organisations, the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association, got together and decided a certain means whereby units of presently publicly-owned road haulage

  1195
  undertakings can become private property and be used in the competitive world. So far it is understandable, and the propaganda goes on in the Press and can be the subject of public comment and criticism. Yesterday, however, we had a discussion in which my hon. Friends raised the point of this organisation, and the Minister was asked about it, and he said:
  "This is a matter of very considerable importance. I am concerned about the integrity with which these affairs are conducted. Obviously, there is nothing improper in a finance house or a banking house approaching individuals whom they think may be anxious to get credit facilities if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 898.]
  I cannot quite see that when public property is being sequestrated in the way in which it is under this Bill private enterprise should be rushing in before Parliament has come to a decision, and making necessary arrangements; but in this statement of the Minister yesterday there is not a word to the effect that this action was taken with his knowledge and approval.
  I come back to the point I made a little earlier. If it was done with his knowledge and approval, which today he admits, although he admits it only because it is published in the newspapers this morning and he had to say "yes" or "no," why did not the Minister say before that it was with his knowledge and approval? Or did he? I am willing to give way to the Minister if he will tell us he did. But he did not.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I took it that Mr. Gibson Jarvie, being a very intelligent person—[Interruption.] I think people deserve some protection in this House of their good name when a lot of other people attack them in this House under the protection of Privilege. I took it that he knew perfectly well that if the Treasury had not approved of such a company they would have conveyed that to him in some way. It was quite unnecessary to give formal approval. Anybody who has ever taken any part in Government knows that the powers of the Treasury are quite considerable. I do not think I need amplify that. I am
  1196
  willing to deal with any new point that may arise during this short debate.
  Mr. Morrison: I am not saying anything upon the qualifications or qualities of Mr. Gibson Jarvie. We know his general outlook upon life. He does positively say in his statement to "The Times" that the United Dominions Trust, with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister, is actually at this moment, in conjunction with the Road Haulage Association, organising an ad hoc company for a specific purpose, and so on. That today is admitted to be true by the Minister.
  The first point I want to make is that this matter was the subject of substantial challenge yesterday and the Minister did not say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that it was with his specific knowledge and approval. That is the first point.
  The second point is even more important. This was an important action of State. It was an important act of policy which the Minister undertook. If a Government, especially when they are handling a Bill of this sort, give their blessing to a particular commercial undertaking, or, rather, to two commercial and financial undertakings, the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association, which Association took part in the last General Election, it makes it all the more important. The whole of the circumstances make it important. It was a decision of policy and an act of State. It is elementary in those circumstances, concerning an important decision of a Minister involving policy of which the House of Commons and the public are not aware, that the first duty of the Minister is to ask himself, "Is it not my duty to inform the House of Commons of this business?" He did not do so.
  I think he has been guilty of a grievous indiscretion and a grievous fault, and I submit to him that, in view of this statement by this gentleman, he has to defend himself against the charge that he ought to have made it clear what the position was yesterday, when these matters were up for specific and explicit discussion. The facts should and could have been given to the House. The Minister could have arranged for a Question by one of his hon. Friends or somebody else, and made a statement, and told the House of Commons he had given his particular

  1197
  blessing and approval to this undertaking, and that it was with his knowledge that they were doing it.
  Mr. Shinwell: Was it in writing?
  Mr. Morrison: Moreover, the question is, as my right hon. Friend says, was it given in writing?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot answer that straight away. My formal approval is not necessary, any more than Treasury formal approval. I think it is inconceivable that the formation of a company of this kind could have been carried out against the wishes of the Treasury. Formal approval is not necessary, so I certainly gave nothing in writing, but I am quite prepared in writing to express my delight at the enterprise and initiative shown.
  Mr. Morrison: The Minister did say earlier that this course was taken with his knowledge and approval. He now agrees that that is so. What I asked was, as knowledge and approval imply positive things, whether those positive things were given by way of writing, telephone conversation, personal conversation or not. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us in his reply.
  The fundamental point is that when a Government Department, on the authority of the Minister, takes an important step in public policy—and this is undoubtedly a very important step; it involves the future of the commercial road service industry up to a point—surely it is elementary that Parliament and the nation should be informed that the Minister has taken that action. That is our complaint; that is the essence of my hon. Friend's criticism; and I think that the Minister really must face up to the apprehensions and tell us why he was not forthcoming with Parliament and the country by telling us what he was doing.
  Mr. David Renton: I should like to remind the House of one or two facts which hon. Members can possibly confirm, as I had to confirm them within the limitations of time, by looking at their pocket books, and they will find that the Report stage of the Transport Bill was considered on 4th, 9th and 10th February. Further, the Third Reading was, I believe, late in February, and the Bill then went to the Lords. As we have already heard, all the material facts relating to the part which the United
  1198
  Dominions Trust is to play—I say, fortunately to play, in order to make this scheme a success—were known to the public and to the Opposition on 5th February.
  If the imputation which has been made today had been correct, the moment to have made it would, I suggest, have been at the earliest opportunity when the facts were made public, on 5th February. So far as I am aware, however—and I have attended the debates and followed those in another place—the party opposite, although they passed casual references to the United Dominions Trust, made no specified complaints of the kind which we have heard today and last night. One therefore wonders why this matter was left until this very late stage.
  When the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was given the opportunity of expatiating further to us just now, I confess that I found his efforts to be—I hope I am not overstating it—"a damp squib." The truth of the matter is surely that hon. Members opposite are somewhat worried about their performance at all stages of the Transport Bill. They have been running out of ammunition for a decent, sharp, clean fight, ammunition which we are all accustomed to use: so what did they do? They invented a sort of political dumdum bullet and decided to fire it off at my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is an honourable man, in the truest sense of the word. Expressing my opinion, which I have no doubt is that of many other Members—I would say most hon. Members—I have complete confidence in him.
  It is a most extraordinary thing that hon. Members, knowing the essential facts, completely failed to use the various opportunities they had of bringing them forward. It was not until last night and today that they did so. Their performance on this Bill has indeed been a poor one. Anyone who listened, as I listened last night and this morning to about two-thirds or three-quarters of the proceedings, was very conscious of the fact that no new constructive arguments whatever were being advanced. We were getting repetition. I am not in any way suggesting that the Chair allowed too much, but I feel sure that the patience of the Chair was very near to being strained. We listened to ceaseless repetition.

  1199
  I have a strong suspicion that hon. Members opposite, especially perhaps some of those connected with trade unions, were rather shocked to find, in the Easter Recess, that their efforts on this Bill have not been applauded by their own members. During the Recess I addressed a small gathering of British Road Services workers. Most of them, I believe, are accustomed to voting against me, although a few of them perhaps vote for me. Although they had followed the proceedings—they had followed what had been printed in the Press, and I assume that they knew about the United Dominions Trust, for there was no lack of candour whatever on the part of my right hon. Friend, or the Government or of anybody else in this matter—what, very naturally, seemed to worry them, much more than the fact that denationalisation was taking place, although they were mainly against it, was that we should do our best to safeguard their interests.
  Within the very generous ambit which hon. Members opposite claimed for themselves in their speeches yesterday there was much moaning about the past and little attention to safeguards for the future. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend is concerned about that, and that his whole conduct of this Bill has been such as to inspire confidence in the minds of everybody, including even the trade unionists, with whom he has been in contact. This is a spurious attempt to dishonour my right hon. Friend, and it is an attempt which must inevitably fail.
  Mr. John Hynd: I wish to raise just one point, largely in view of the tone of the statement made by the Minister and of the speech made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). While it is possible to make great play with this opportunity, as the hon. Member has done, to discuss whether the trade unionists in the country are behind the Opposition and Parliament in their attitude towards the general purpose or the details of the Bill, that is not the purpose for which the Adjournment was moved.
  I wish to address myself seriously to the point with which I and some of my hon. Friends are concerned. That is not necessarily the fact that a buying company has been organised; I do not think that that
  1200
  is the gravamen of the charge made. Quite clearly, if a big operation of this kind is in sight private enterprise will make its preparations and organisation for financing people, for making a maximum profit out of the opportunity presented to it.
  5.0 p.m.
  What I am concerned about is the simple point that when we debated this matter to a great extent last night and on various other occasions, the Minister gave us clearly to understand, and certainly by repeated implication, that he was almost unaware of the existence of this body and it certainly had no particular facilities from him. He repeatedly said that it had been given no access to the Road Haulage Association or the Transport Commission. That may be true. I am not charging him with misleading the House on that point, but I am unable to reconcile what he said yesterday with what he has said today. It is because of the difference of the information with which the House is provided today that we are concerned about what is going on, and what part the Minister is playing in it.
  Yesterday, referring to the question of the United Dominions Trust, he said:
  "It is clearly impossible to make quite certain, in a great change of this kind, that no contacts, which perhaps should not take place in quite the form they do, should be legalised."
  Later, he said:
  "To go to the offices of an organisation which is not yet dissolved raises quite different considerations, and I think it is quite right that the Transport Commission should look after the interests of their own staff."
  The Minister confirmed that there was apparently some need for the Transport Commission to protect their staff against these organisations, and he then went on to say:
  "The fact is that they did not prohibit such contacts, but said that any approaches should be referred to headquarters, and I consider that that was the right approach. They could then protect their people when they needed protection.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 890–899.]
  These are the activities of the organisation in respect of which the Minister, today faced with the exposure that has come out in "The Times," used these words:
  "I am quite prepared to express my delight at the enterprise shown by this organisation."
  That is what is so disturbing to me and to a great many of my colleagues, and

  1201
  to many hundreds and thousands of transport workers.
  What is, in fact, going on? We are fully appreciative of the inevitability, as I said earlier, that private enterprise—I do not want to use unpleasant similes or metaphors—will be gathered together in the camps ready to pounce on the carcase of the transport organisation and to suck out of it whatever may be left. What we are concerned about is the method by which they do it. Clearly, the method by which they do it, protected and approved of by the Minister, and, indeed, applauded with delight by the Minister, is by snooping into offices and depôts—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not intentionally misquote me. I said that I regarded with delight the formation of the company. There is all the difference in the world between being pleased with the formation of the company and taking responsibility for the way in which it carries on its business functions. That is quite a different matter. On that matter, I am quite willing to deal with anything the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Hynd: With all due respect to the Minister, I pay my humble tribute to the forefather of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), and I took down the exact words as a result of the help which I derived from the enterprise of that well-known gentleman. The Minister said:
  "I am quite prepared to express my delight"—
  not on the formation of the company—
  "but at the enterprise shown by the organisation."
  These words were used, not about the formation of the company, but the charges levelled from these Front Benches before he used the words about these other activities.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hynd: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. If he looks in HANSARD tomorrow, I think he will find the words exactly as I have repeated them.
  Here is an organisation which, whether they are being provided with access or not, are certainly having access to the records and the offices of the Road Haulage Executive and of the Transport Commission. They are, by the Minister's own
  1202
  implied admission, in one case here, apparently threatening members of the staff or undertaking whatever activities the Minister means, in respect of the staff, who, in the Minister's own words, require the protection of the Transport Commission. If there is not something for the Minister to answer in regard to the delight which he feels that this kind of activity is going on and has his apparent approval, there is the fact that he did not give us any of this information yesterday. We have heard from him today about his delighted approval of the enterprise of this organisation in carrying out their activities, and if it had not been for publication in "The Times," and the fact that this matter was raised in the House this morning, we should have been left entirely in the dark as to what was going on.
  After the explanation we have had from the Minister, I am very much still in the dark, as many hundreds and thousands outside the House will be. I am very concerned as to what is the sinister activity going on behind the cover of this organisation with the approval of the Minister.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend agreed to move the Adjournment of the House. There was no need for it and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who spoke first, knows that there was no need for it.
  To understand what is going on, we have to recognise the background against which this debate is taking place today. Right from the last Election, when we made it quite clear that we intended to free the road haulage industry, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite made it equally clear that they intended to resist it with all the means at their disposal, and they have made it clear now that they intend to resist it, whether the means be clean or unclean.
  The whole purpose of the exchanges which had taken place over the last hour is merely to use up Parliamentary time to frustrate decisions. All that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends intend to do is to waste time and filibuster. The only reason that I am on my feet now is to say that I am, personally, very sorry indeed that in order to carry out their

  1203
  political intentions hon. Members opposite had to descend to the depth of besmirching the Minister and businessmen outside this House. All the evidence that we have had so far has made it perfectly clear to any reasonably-minded person that there is no foundation at all for the implied charges which have come from the other side of the House. I think that the description which has already been given to it, that it is transparent nonsense, is abundantly clear to everybody.
  The only point that seemed to be at issue when the question was first raised again today was about what my right hon. Friend said yesterday about his having welcomed this company being set up and the statement made by Mr. Gibson Jarvie that it had his full knowledge and approval. When my right hon. Friend answered that, I should have thought that that would have ended the matter. He reminded us that all the details of these transactions have been published in the public Press in detail so long ago as 5th February. The very fact that Ministers read the newspapers and admitted having done so shows that it must have been within their knowledge. The fact that they have taken no steps to stop it shows that it had their approval. So far, the Minister was quite right in welcoming this company setting up the organisation which they said they were going to do.
  We have said that we want to denationalise this industry; we have said we welcome people purchasing these lorries to run under private enterprise. If we say that and mean it, of course we welcome efforts made in a legal way to enable that to happen. I do not see any difference between this financial company being set up to encourage people to buy lorries and a building society encouraging people to purchase houses.
  All I say now to hon. Members opposite is that their intentions are perfectly clear. They intend to use every effort, as I said, whether it is clean or unclean, and to waste Parliamentary time. I ask them if they intend to continue their resistance, to do it in a Parliamentary manner. I am asking—
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Is not this debate fully in order and according to the facilities given by Mr. Speaker? Is it in order
  1204
  for an hon. Member to question the validity of this debate and its being in order in accordance with the decision of Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Nicholls: I am certainly not questioning the validity of your conduct of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but express my personal regret that my right hon. Friend moved the Adjournment.
  Mr. Thomas: I put a clear point of order about the imputation and allegation made by the hon. Member against the conduct of this debate. That point has not been dealt with. The point of order is that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) made the imputation that the facilities given to the House to debate this question were the result of something underhand on the part of Her Majesty's Opposition. If that is so, it is obvious that Mr. Speaker himself has wrongly advised or facilitated the proceedings of the House to enable this debate to proceed. What is the opinion of the Chair in regard to that imputation?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Leader of the House moved the Adjournment and it was understood and we are now having a debate. The hon. Member began his speech by saying that he did not agree with his right hon. Friend and he is entitled to say so.
  Mr. Nicholls: My final words are—
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. The real difficulty is that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) is making very objectionable allegations that the Opposition are using methods "clean and unclean," apparently with the approval of the Chair. I think the hon. Member should be asked to withdraw that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I hear anything which I think should be withdrawn, I shall be very quick to ask for it to be withdrawn.
  Mr. MacMillan: May I have your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to say that the Opposition in raising this matter today are using methods "clean and unclean" under Parliamentary procedure and with the approval, therefore, of the Chair?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The word "unclean" is not a forbidden Parliamentary word.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Further to that point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), in his most objectionable and quite irrelevant speech, saying that the debate had taken place entirely because of filibustering tactics of the Opposition. That means that Mr. Speaker, when he allowed it, connived at the filibustering tactics alleged by the hon. Member. I think the hon. Member ought to be asked to withdraw and we ought not to be objected to such an objectionable discourse as we have had from the hon. Member.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that "filibustering" is another word for obstruction and it is not out of order to accuse a person of obstructing.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: Was not the relevant suggestion that this debate was not only filibustering, but unparliamentary? This debate has taken place on a Motion moved from the Government Front Bench with the permission of Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to declare a Motion consented to and acquiesced in by Mr. Speaker as un-Parliamentary?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be absurd to declare it un-Parliamentary because we are in Parliament now.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I hope I am in order, I am not sure. I did say at the beginning of this debate that this might be a short debate on the Motion for the Adjournment and I want to be perfectly fair about it. I think that if we can make progress and bring it towards an end that would be wise. If one persuades the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment on the basis of a short debate, I think that honourably one may abide by that agreement. There can be room for discussion at other times and I suggest that we might make progress. I think that the Minister could make some observations and my hon. Friend might say something afterwards.
  Mr. Nicholls: In acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), all
  1206
  I wish to say on the further proceedings on this Bill is this: by all means let the Opposition press their Amendments with all the vigour they can, but I appeal to them to try not to besmirch the good name of people outside this House behind the privilege we have here. My final word is to my right hon. Friend and is that his reputation as a Minister has been enhanced by the dignity and vigour he has shown.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I made a speech lasting about a quarter of an hour on this matter some time ago. I then told the whole story and I have very little I can add. I should like to make one or two short observations. There is, of course, a clear distinction between approving the formation of a new company like this by regarding it with formal approval as consistent with Government policy, and approving every action that may be taken by one of the parties to such a new company.
  As for the second consideration—any action that may be taken—as I said yesterday and repeat today, I think that the Commission, quite rightly, said that if approaches are made to their staff about visits to their depots and kindred matters they should be referred to their headquarters. This is the answer to the hon. Member for Atttercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), and what I had in mind when I said that in a change of this kind there might be contacts taking place from time to time—perhaps it was not in that form of words, but to that effect—and that things of that sort should be examined by the headquarters of the Road Haulage Executive who would then give advice to their own servants. I repeat that I think they have acted with complete propriety in this matter.
  As I said before, this statement was issued on 4th February. It was published in the national Press on 5th February. Anybody who wanted to ask me questions could have done so at any time. We actually had the Report stage of the Transport Bill on the very day—4th February—when the statement was first issued. No doubt it was on the Table on 5th February, when it appeared in all the national newspapers and we were debating it for the whole day on Report. Then we had another day, I think the 19th, when the matter was once more ventilated.

  1207
  My formal approval is not required, but I am delighted at the action taken which in the view of the Government, and, naturally, in the view of the Treasury, is fully consistent with Government policy, that action being the formation of a company along the announced lines. I regret very much that the Opposition did not use their opportunities if they wished to do so to challenge something that was known throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  One is left with this conclusion that the Opposition are anxious that these national assets should be sold at the greatest possible loss so that they then can say that Her Majesty's Ministers are squandering national property. The answer is that they will not be sold at a national loss. One of the vehicles whereby a good price may well be obtained is this company, and, in conclusion, I should like to say that the United Dominions Trust would have to spend a great deal of money in the market to get the national publicity that the Opposition have given them.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am personally much obliged to the Leader of the House for taking the action which he did to develop what I tried to put earlier in the afternoon. I moved the Motion that further consideration of the Lords Amendments should be adjourned, so that the Minister might give certain explanations. I asked him certain questions, which, unfortunately, I was not able to finish because Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom and with complete propriety, decided that he could not allow that particular Motion to continue.
  I wish to repeat the questions that I put to the Minister then in order that he may see the situation in which we were and about which I must say I felt very strongly. I was extremely astonished this morning to read in "The Times" a particular statement. Any fair-minded person will understand why I was astonished when I read that article. For several hours yesterday we were having a debate which ranged around the position of the United Dominions Trust. We investigated its financial ramifications and its activities and we commented adversely on some of the things it was doing. In
  1208
  one case we got the Minister halfheartedly to admonish the Trust for what it was doing. Another time he said that he was very concerned about the integrity of these operations. At no time did he breathe as much as a hint to us that there had been any communications or any consultations of any sort between him and this body.
  Mr. Cecil Poole: Is there not this additional point which I think is material, and I am not casting any aspersions either upon the Minister or upon the United Dominions Trust? Did we not write into this Bill yesterday a proviso that the Minister also should be the official arbiter as to which bid shall be accepted for certain transport units? I venture to suggest that that is a very dangerous power for the Minister to take, and it is even more so now when we read of his association with this body.
  Mr. Callaghan: I hope the Minister will take note of that point, which certainly has been considered on this side of the House
  If I may continue, I want to put this to the Minister. When we have a long debate of this sort in which the operations of this Trust are concerned, does he not think that he has some obligation to inform the House of his relationship, if any, with this particular body? I am sure that most of my hon. Friends saw the announcement in the daily Press on 5th February. I remember reading it myself, and I assumed it was a private venture which was being conducted by Mr. Gibson Jarvie and the Road Haulage Association. I certainly did not think it my duty at that time specifically to press the Minister as to whether this operation had his full knowledge and approval. It seems to me it is the Minister's obligation, where he has given his consent to a course of this sort, that he should at least inform the House on this matter.
  I tell the Minister that, as a result of several months' experience, I am rather suspicious of him on these matters and I will say why. In my view, this is the third occasion on which he has been convicted of lack of candour towards the House of Commons. We had an illustration at seven o'clock this morning, which I will not recount now, and my hon.

  1209
  Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) recounted in the course of that debate the third illustration which we have in mind, which was connected with the attitude of the Commission and the Railway Executive.
  I am bound to say this to the Minister, with all good temper—and we think that the Prime Minister should know our views on this—that we have had to press the Minister on many occasions to give us information which, in our view, he should have volunteered in order to make the position clear. Perhaps it is wrong to hold that view. I can only tell the House that I genuinely feel it, and, if necessary, I will go into specific illustrations at some length to show why I have these doubts about the Minister's candour.
  He is, of course, the prosecuting counsel for this Bill, but he also holds an impartial position to some extent as regards the Commission. I must tell him that we on this side feel that he has failed in his duty throughout the Bill to present the Commission's side of the story. It is with this fact in mind that when I read the account in "The Times" this morning I came to the conclusion, which, in my view, was justified by what the Minister told us, that here was another occasion on which he could have told the House what was happening, on which he had the particulars to tell the House what was happening, and yet he failed to take the opportunity to do so.
  It seems to me that this is not the way in which to build up confidence as between two sides of the House when they have to have dealings with each other. Each side has to feel that the other side can be relied upon to give all the story where the facts are in their possession alone. I put it to the Minister that if we are to have a relationship that will at least retain a certain measure of trust between us and belief that the other man is trying to tell the whole story, that he ought to be generous to the point of fault in volunteering information which only he has about these matters. I have asked these questions because the Minister has been convicted of lack of candour on this occasion.
  I asked the Minister at the beginning whether it was with his authority that this was done, and the answer is that it
  1210
  was with his authority. I regret that he did not take the many opportunities that were open to him to tell the House so. I asked him, secondly, what were the nature of his consultations, if any—I used the words "if any" when I put my original question—with the United Dominions Trust. We still do not know what consultations, if any, have taken place. We do not know whether it was by correspondence, by way of conversation or whether, in fact, when this appeared in the Press the Minister picked it up and said that this was a very good enterprise that he should support.
  It seems to me that the Minister might have taken the opportunity of explaining more exactly what consultations took place between him, the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust on this matter. Let us know where we stand—and I put this question for a particular reason, not for mere reasons of pedantry. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has been keenly interested throughout the whole of these proceedings in ensuring that the small man should be able to re-enter the road haulage industry, and, on re-entering it, that he should not be forced out by large combines. That point was made by the Minister as far as he could yesterday, although he told us then he could give no guarantee as to whether future amalgamations would not take place.
  The third question I was putting to the Minister, and which I never finally got out, was a very simple one. What guarantees did he get in the consultations that took place between him, the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust that, in fact, when the Trust had loaned the small men money, and, therefore, they were all indebted to it, with the Trust having a financial control over them, that the Trust would not use its financial position afterwards to force amalgamations by foreclosing on the mortgages?
  That is exactly the position that has been envisaged throughout these debates and I put it to the Minister that if he did not get any guarantee on this matter and if he did not enter into consultation on this question, he is putting a large section of the road haulage industry into the power of the financiers, and if he did

  1211
  not get that guarantee it seems to me that he cannot legitimately support the point which he himself wrote into the Bill yesterday.
  5.30 p.m.
  I think the Minister should have been more careful in the phrases he used about the United Dominions Trust, when we consider the sort of people he is dealing with and their activities in the road haulage depots that we disclosed in the House yesterday. He should have regard to the fact that these people are quite slippery operators—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If that is not the case, I would like to know what is the view of the House about a quotation like this:
  "The fruits of office are sweet, the perquisites are tempting, so the policy of the party in power seems to be, 'Let's grab what we can, when we can, while we can. Let the future, or some other Government when we can hold on no longer, clear up the mess.'"
  Those are the views of Mr. Gibson Jarvie.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The fruits of office.
  Mr. Callaghan: The only thing of which I have accused the Minister in this matter, and of which I still think he is guilty, is a lack of candour in his obligation towards informing the House of matters which are in his knowledge and only in his knowledge. He should take a lesson from this and inform us more fully in the future of the activities in this field.
  Mr. Crookshank: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope the House will think that it was worth while having a short debate on this matter. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have stated such case as they felt lay against my right hon. Friend; my right hon. Friend has defended himself, and it is there now in the record for everybody to form his own personal judgment. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me to move the Adjournment Motion he thought the debate would be short. We have had a short debate, and now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to honour what was the implied bargain, that this should be a short discussion, but I want to suggest to the House that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury have been consulted
  1212
  about this matter. He did not develop that point. If it is the suggestion that application has been made to the Treasury by this company for new capital, anticipating a decision of the House when this House had not met, then we are entitled, having had the information, to be told the facts. The Minister told us last night that no special facilities had been given to this company. I do not know what the meaning of the word "special" is. If it is that this is the only company given facilities up to now, I should have thought that was special.
  Without wishing to prolong this debate, it is to the advantage of this House that we should have the facts before the Motion for the Adjournment is withdrawn, otherwise we shall be bound to be referring to it continually in the debate on the Lords Amendments, when it will be appropriate and relevant. The House is entitled to hear what the Treasury had to do with this matter, whether the Treasury was consulted jointly with the Ministry, what meetings were held and when, and what promises have been given.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I feel that my personal honour is involved. I asked the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment of the House in order that the matter might be ventilated briefly and reasonably shortly. I am a former Leader of the House and I know what risks the Leader of the House can run by moving the Adjournment. Having done that, we must keep the bargain and I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has raised a perfectly fair point, that it would be well for him to put a Question on the Order Paper to the Chancellor and thereby follow it up. But, having sought the Adjournment on the basis of that understanding, and the right hon. Gentleman having given way, it is fair that we should now let the Motion be withdrawn by leave of the House.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Without wishing to delay the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—I want to ask a question. If we agree to the Adjournment Motion being withdrawn, does that not imply that we accept the explanation? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Will it be quite clear that any consent to the withdrawal involves no acceptance of the explanation, which we regard as utterly unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Morrison: That question obviously is put to me and I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should put it. We have stated our point of view, we adhere to that point of view, and we may take other opportunities or not. However, we have had the opportunity of stating our point of view and I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should think that on the conclusion of the withdrawal of the Motion for the Adjournment, I am thereby supporting the right hon. Gentleman. I am not doing anything of the kind. However, having got the Adjournment under a certain understanding, I and all my hon. Friends carry the responsibility to uphold that understanding.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should be the last one who would want in any way to embarrass my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). This, however, is a matter involving the rights of Parliament as against Ministers of the Crown, and before I agree that the Motion for the Adjournment should be withdrawn I want to add to what has been said already. I only do so because I think it is a different point from that which has been mentioned previously.
  I rejoice in the fact that the Leader of the House moved the Adjournment so that we might ventilate for a few minutes the conduct of the Minister. Apart altogether from what has been said on the Front Bench about the candour of the Minister, I would with great respect make an observation about what has disturbed me in the revelation made this afternoon and last night. It seems to me inconsistent with the constitutional duty of a Minister of the Crown towards Parliament that in anticipation of the passage of legislation he should conduct private negotiations with a private company on the assumption that the Bill which he has introduced to the House will be passed, either at all or in any particular form.
  Ministers of the Crown should remember that their first and primary responsibility is to the House of Commons. They are servants of Parliament, servants of the people. It is contrary to their duty to engage in negotiations with outside interests on the assumption that legislation which they introduce will be passed. If they do engaged in such discussions, it is their paramount duty to disclose those
  1214
  negotiations at every stage during which the legislation they have introduced is being considered in this House. In my view, it is the disregard and neglect by the Minister of that duty which has made it worth while for us to have had this discussion this afternoon.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 6, at end, insert new Clause "A":
  Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares
  (1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:
  Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid.
  (2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.
  In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure, and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.
  (3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable in a manner specified in the notice:
  Provided that—

  (a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and

  (b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares they may, with the approval of the Board, sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

  (4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.
  (5) No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section.
  (6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.
  Where Scotland is affected, the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before giving any directions under this subsection.
  (7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if—

  (a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;

  (b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said
  1216
  section twelve should have effect as respects the company;

  (c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act 1947, subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

  Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.
  (8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorized thereunder and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said First Schedule to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to motor vehicles sold as or as part of transport units shall be construed accordingly:
  Provided that—

  (a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I of the said First Schedule in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;

  (b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

  (9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

  (a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;

  (b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle,

  1217
  which has been included in such an A licence otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed therefrom;

  (c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

  (10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as part of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.
  (11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

  (a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and

  (b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission.

  but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property.

  Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.
  (12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.
  (13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1).
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), after the first "that" to insert:
  "in order to secure a higher price for any property which for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking is held by them or for any other reason."
  We now come to discuss the Amendments to the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause "A," These are serious
  1218
  Amendments to an important Clause and it is as well that we can discuss these now objectively and in calmer waters now that the other matter has been disposed of. Otherwise, I feel sure that it would have been found relevant to discuss the matter in connection with the Clause and the Amendments which we have on the Order Paper.
  I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we can take at the same time the second Amendment, which is really consequential: In subsection (1), line 2, leave out from "that," to "should," in line 3 and insert "such property."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: With the incorporation of the Amendments, the opening lines of the new Clause "A" would read as follows:
  "If it appears to the Commission that in order to secure a higher price for any property which for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking is held by them or for any other reason it is expedient that such property should, instead of being disposed of under section 3 or section 4 of this Act, be disposed of under this section. …"
  The new Clause which was introduced in another place was the result of discussions which we had in Committee and on Report. The proposal that there should be provisions in the Bill for companies being formed prior to disposal, so that business units could be converted into companies and the companies could be disposed of, came from both sides of the House. I recall that the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) was among those on the benches opposite who made this proposal.
  The Minister, I think, endeavoured to buy off his hon. Friends by promising that when the Bill went to the other place, a new Clause would be inserted. I hope that this afternoon, differently from yesterday and this morning, we are to hear something from hon. Members opposite and that the hon. Member for Hall Green will let us know how far the new Clause goes to meet the wishes expressed by him during the Committee stage. I have my doubts, in view of some of the statements which were made in the other place by Lord Swinton, that it really meets the purpose which the hon. Member for Hall Green outlined in our earlier debates.

  1219
  The reason we have put down these Amendments to the Clause is to endeavour to make certain that, in forming the companies and in disposing of them, the Commission shall have the right to decide when it is expedient to form companies. Surely it is the Commission which will be in a better position to know when it is desirable that these transport assets should be converted into companies, and by this means a better price or easier disposal obtained. That explains the purpose of the Clause, and we do not think it should be left as it stands. The fact that there is a possibility of securing a higher price for any property should be an adequate reason for the formation of the company. In its present form, the Clause states:
  "If it … is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard …"
  —that is, in disposing of their property they may form these companies. That brings in the standard, as it were, and the test in addition of securing a higher price.
  5.45 p.m.
  We consider that the formation of companies is desirable and that the Commission, when it thinks it can obtain a higher price, should have the right to form those companies, because thereby there will be a more orderly disposal of the assets of the road haulage undertakings. It is desirable that the disposal should be orderly, and for two main reasons.
  The first is that a continuity of service can be maintained. There is grave danger that if the existing road haulage undertaking is broken up into a series of transport units, as is proposed by the Bill, the continuity of the services, particularly the trunk services, the national network of services, the parcels and smalls division, and so on, will disappear. These services will be disintegrated and broken up, and the transport user will not receive the same economic and efficient comprehensive service as he receives today. If, however, the Commission decided that it was desirable to maintain certain services through the company organisation, by maintaining those services it would obtain
  1220
  a better price for them because they are going concerns with all the goodwill attached.
  We put down this test of the higher price for the property, but there are also other reasons why we consider this to be desirable. We are here selling national assets, and this is something of which we have to remind the Minister from time to time. In regard to the disposal of the assets of the Commission, the Minister— almost consistently, I should say—puts the interest of the purchaser before the national interest. He is concerned with providing the purchaser with a business at as low a price or as satisfactory a price to the purchaser as possible, and has little regard to obtaining the highest possible price for these assets, which in the last resort belong to the taxpayer.
  It is highly desirable that the test of the highest possible price should be applied in the manner of disposal. These are national assets which belong to the community, and it is for the Commission to decide when a higher price could be obtained. If it considers that a higher price could in fact be obtained, it should have the right to form companies in the way that is suggested. That is one of the main purposes of our two Amendments.
  There is one disappointing feature of the new Clause, and one which is relevant to these Amendments. When the Minister accepted in the House the principle of introducing into the Bill machinery for establishing companies as one of the means for disposal of the assets of the existing road haulage undertakings, it is fair to say that he gave to hon. Members on the other side, who favoured this method of disposal, and certainly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side, the impression that this would not be an exceptional means of disposal, but one of two or three different means of disposal.
  There would be the transport units which are provided for in Clause 3 (1). There would, of course, be the transfer to companies owned permanently by the Commission in accordance with Clause 4, and there would be the disposal of chattels, and so on, which is provided for in the Bill. There would also be this machinery for disposal through companies. The Minister never gave the House the impression that one of those means would be given preference or priority, and that as between transport

  1221
  units and the company system of disposal there would be no preference. When the Clause was introduced in another place and the debate took place, it was made clear that the Government now considered that the company structure was to be used as an exceptional measure. Viscount Swinton stated in regard to this method of disposal:
  "Its only object is to provide an alternative method of selling a transport unit in what we anticipate will be exceptional cases."
  I repeat, "exceptional cases."
  "The main method of sale, and certainly, in most cases, the convenient method of sale, will be that which has always been laid down in the Bill. The units will be, for the main part, those most likely to appeal to the potential purchasers."
  Always in the minds of Ministers responsible for the Bill is the advantage to the potential purchaser; it is the obtaining of the best price, not in the interests of the community, in the national interest, in the public interest, but in the interests of the purchasers and in the interests of the Road Haulage Association.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I do not quite follow the point. Surely if the assets which are to be disposed of are organised in such a way that they will be more attractive to the purchaser, we shall get a better price for them? Are we not in agreement on that?
  Mr. Davies: Not entirely. I do not see that that follows. The unit would be more likely to appeal to a potential purchaser if it were made up in such a way that it was possible to sell it at a lower price than it would be if it were organised in such a way that certain essential national services were to be maintained.
  Later in his speech, Lord Swinton said:
  "I cannot say how many such cases there will be, but I think one must take it that this method of disposal is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, if these Amendments"—
  referring to the Amendments moved in another place—
  "… were carried, they would apply only in exceptional cases. But, after all, the main purpose of this Bill is to dispose of these units as units."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1193–4.]
  Our two Amendments would make this method of disposal not exceptional but on a par with the transport unit method
  1222
  of disposal. We should put this question of price as one of the standards which the Commission would apply in determining whether or not to create companies for disposal. There is another reason we think the Commission should have greater flexibility in the right to form companies far disposal; thereby the interests of the maintenance of the service can be put before the urgency of the disposal of national assets.
  Mr. Aubrey Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument further, might I put this to him? He has quoted certain passages from the speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I would also refer him to a passage in a speech by the Earl of Selkirk which gives a quite different impression. I will read it:
  "The noble Lord"—
  that is, a noble Lord of the Opposition—
  "… has asked how often this method"—
  the companies procedure—
  "… will be used. The Bill is the thing that counts. It makes it quite clear"—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are in the same session. Quotations can only be made from Government pronouncements in another place.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: The noble Lord was speaking for the Government.
  Mr. Davies: I believe that the hon. Member for Hall Green is in order. The Earl of Selkirk is a Member of the Government.
  Mr. Champion: Surely it is in order to quote a Minister?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not realise that a Minister was being quoted. I beg pardon.
  Mr. Jones: The noble Lord continued:
  "It makes it quite clear that the initiative comes from the Commission … There is no initiative from Her Majesty's Government at all. It is clear in the Bill. It is not possible for me, except by guessing, to say how much this method will be used. I cannot say more than that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 96.]
  That is a quite different impression from that which the hon. Gentleman has tried to convey.
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that that is rather typical of the experience that we have had in this House, that in handling the Bill Ministers do not speak with one voice. We have had a lot of experience of that on the Floor of the House during the last 36 hours. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary, during an intervention, had to call upon the Minister to get him out of a hole, and we have had differences between the Attorney-General, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary; and here is an instance of it in another place between Lord Swinton and the Earl of Selkirk.
  There are other statements about the exceptional use of this method, and I hope the Economic Secretary will tell us exactly to what extent it is anticipated that this method of disposal will be used, whether the Government are able to assess the extent to which it is considered desirable or likely to use this method. Be that as it may, if accepted, our Amendments would make it certain that it would be used more than it would otherwise be, because we are specific and we write in the standards which should be applied by the Commission when it decides whether or not to form a company, and that concerns a higher price.
  During the debate on the remainder of the Lords Amendments and on our Amendments, it is essential that, where it is possible for the Bill, through these Amendments, to be improved to give priority to obtaining the best price for the national assets, that priority should be given. After all, one of the main criticisms of the Bill all the way through has been not only that it brings about de-nationalisation but that it brings about de-nationalisation in a way which will result in a colossal loss to the community, that the manner in which the assets will be disposed of will result in losses to the community and that those losses are, to a large extent, to be met out of a Transport Levy.
  I believe that one of the main reasons why the hon. Member for Hall Green and his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) pressed the company method of disposal—"business units," they called it in the first instance— on the Minister was that they thought that thereby the higher price would be obtained and the necessity for the Transport Levy would disappear. We do not say that, through acceptance of these
  1224
  Amendments, the necessity for the Transport Levy would disappear, because we are convinced that as long as the assets are broken up and dissipated there is bound to be a loss in their sale; but we ought to do everything possible to minimise that loss, and we consider that this is one of the ways in which to do it. Therefore, in the interests of the community—that is, in the interests of obtaining the highest possible price for the assets of this great national enterprise—we suggest that the Minister should give serious consideration to the first two Amendments of the many which we suggest should be made to the new Clause proposed in the Lords Amendment.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. A. Hargreaves: Acceptance of this Amendment would make more attractive and more effective this Clause for the organisation of the sale by means of companies—a Clause to which hon. Members opposite directed our attention in Committee. I think most hon. Members would agree that prospective purchasers of the assets of the road haulage undertaking would find sales of vehicles more attractive than sales of the remaining assets of the organisation, such as the properties or chattels, which is the name the Minister has applied to these other properties. If we accept the principle of the Bill and are determined upon a quick and orderly disposal, obviously the company principle must appeal to us as an efficient and effective way of disposing of the assets.
  I still believe that the ideas of the Government expressed in the Bill are entirely wrong and will be to the disadvantage of the industry. However, the House has accepted the principle of the Bill, and long and earnest endeavours have been made in all quarters to improve it, and in my opinion the insertion of this Amendment relating to price would help towards that end. The sale of vehicles is obviously a much better proposition than the sale of the chattels or properties which at present form the undertaking—the buildings, stores, and so on. In order that due consideration shall be given to the price, I believe that this purpose should be an essential part of this proposed Lords Amendment.
  It was said earlier that sufficient emphasis was laid in the general purposes

  1225
  of the Bill on the need for obtaining the best possible price, as it was called, and the emphasis was laid rather upon the speed of disposal. We have had many discussions on the means whereby the wishes of the Government might best be achieved. From the outset we feared that if the first emphasis of the Bill was upon speed, it might run through the whole work and purpose of the Bill to the detriment of the need for obtaining the best possible price.
  Another point which we ought to bear in mind in considering this company structure organisation has already been touched on. In all our considerations we must remember that, notwithstanding the central purpose of the Bill—the disposal of the road haulage organisation—there is laid upon the Commission the injunction to continue, all the while this disposal is being effected, the services they are at present providing with whatever means are left to them. It is believed that this Lords Amendment will provide a means whereby the assets may be made attractive to the purchaser, and I agree that to some extent that meets the point to which our Amendment calls attention.
  But because of the outstanding attraction of the vehicles in these sales, and the fact that they represent less than half the assets for disposal—about 40 per cent.— I wish to reinforce the suggestion that we should endeavour to lay more emphasis upon the company structure of disposal, recognising that wrapping, so to speak, the more attractive 40 per cent. of the assets round the remaining 60 per cent. is a means whereby the sale may be more attractive to the purchaser.
  That is something we have rather lost sight of in our discussions. We have regarded this sale as a sale of vehicles, which are commanding a high price because of their scarcity value in the market—vehicles which have an exceptional value to certain operators—forgetting that 60 per cent. of the assets to be disposed of are not vehicles at all. If the sale is to be successful, and if the best price is to be obtained, there must be greater emphasis upon the need for the better use of the company structure in the disposal of the assets, which is what we are after.
  The orderly disposal of the assets is also a common aim on both sides, and is
  1226
  bound up with the other factor of the continuance of the services, the duty for which is still laid upon the Commission in the Bill. We cannot get a reasoned, orderly disposal of both kinds of assets— of the vehicles, which are the more attractive, and of the remaining assets, which are possibly less attractive unless bound up with vehicles—with the speed of sale enjoined in the Bill, and at the same time get the continuance of the necessary services in the hands of the Commission with the facilities left to them. Those things must go together in an orderly fashion.
  The principle of the company structure seems to be accepted with some reluctance. That principle must be accepted, not as at the lower end of the scale in the disposal of these assets, but as an important matter, because otherwise the nation will not get the best possible price for the assets. I hope, therefore, that whoever replies for the Government will accept what I regard as the best of the differing voices which have expressed the Government's viewpoint in another place on this question of the best use of the company structure and will emphasise its importance.
  Mr. Maudling: I venture to intervene at this stage because I think that may be for the convenience of the House. I may be able to indicate that there is rather more community of agreement between the two sides of the House in this matter, though in this case again there is an example of the fundamental difference of principle which divides the House on the question of the organisation of road haulage.
  We are not discussing at the moment the main Lords Amendment but the Amendment to it. The Amendment gives to the Commission the opportunity of transferring property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares. The genesis of this was the suggestion emanating from my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) which subsequently received a great deal of support. It may well be in many cases desirable for the assets of the Commission to be disposed of in this fashion rather than in the form of transport units. I think we are all agreed on that.

  1227
  The Amendment we are now considering seeks to emphasise the point which the Opposition have constantly and rightly emphasised, the importance of securing the highest possible price for any of the Commission's property disposed of under this Bill. For this reason they wish to insert these words which put upon the Commission, in exercising its discretion and taking the initiative, the responsibility of bearing in mind the need to secure a higher price for any property held by them at the present moment for one purpose or another.
  But that is already included in the Lords Amendment as it stands. Hon. Members will see that the Commission are to have regard to subsection (3) of Clause 3 which contains two points. First, the Commission shall have regard to the importance of allowing people to enter or re-enter the industry who can operate only on a small scale. It also says:
  "Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price."
  The Lords Amendment was drafted to lay upon the Commission in the case of the sale through the company structure precisely the same obligation as is already laid upon them in the part of the Bill which has been passed in the case of the transport units. In other words, they have an obligation to make sure they obtain the best possible price. To that extent it provides an answer and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member would be redundant.
  6.15 p.m.
  There is also this point which I am sure the hon. Member has in mind, that Clause 3 (3) stresses the importance of small units. This is what I was referring to when I said that once again we see emerging a fundamental difference of principle in the organisation of road transport. We believe that the right form of organisation for this industry is the small unit. We believe that is the most efficient form, but I do not wish to enter into the long argument raised by experts from both sides of the House on this subject. I think it sufficient to say that we believe as a matter of cardinal principle that the industry should be organ-
  1228
  ised in small units, which is why we put this proviso in the passage dealing with transport units and in the Lords Amendment dealing with the disposal through companies.
  Therefore, in both cases the Commission will have the same obligation, to have regard to what we believe to be the cardinal principle of allowing small units to be formed and the other duty of getting the best possible price in the disposal of the assets.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider the two points to be inconsistent? Obviously the idea of forming such a company is to make a reasonably large unit for easier disposal, and subsection (3) would not therefore apply to companies. That is one of the reasons we put down our Amendment. We prefer to stress the larger unit in the case of companies while not denying that we may have the smaller units in the other case.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a very important point. By and large, it is true that companies will be the larger units. We agree there should be two methods of disposal of the Commission's assets, one by way of transport units to smaller operators generally and the other through companies to larger operators.
  The question the hon Gentleman is asking is what would be the balance between the two. That is not a matter which the Government propose to lay down in the Bill. That matter is left to the Commission and the Disposal Board, subject to the clear principles laid down. The principles are to some extent conflicting, but obviously a balance must be held between the principles we introduced of the small undertakings and the highest possible price. In the light of these principles, it is left to the discretion of the Commission to decide, subject to the approval of the Disposal Board, about the disposal of certain assets in the form of companies rather than of transport units.
  I hope I have made our position clear. I felt there was a good area of agreement between us on this matter. Great importance must be attached to getting the highest possible price for the units; but there is also a clear area of disagreement, on which we shall never reach a compromise, about whether the units should

  1229
  be large or small. We believe it to be fundamental to give importance to the small units.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two points which we have been trying to get straight? Would he not agree that it is inconsistent to apply Clause 3 (3) to the company structure, because he himself has admitted that companies obviously will be larger units? Therefore, the standard applying to the small man does not apply to these companies. It is not ruled out, but it does not apply a priori. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him, which, in effect, is whether the statement by Lord Swinton in another place on 10th March, that this form of company structure for disposal would be exceptional, represents Government policy?
  Mr. Maudling: I can reply only by leave of the House. Clause 3 (3) would not be applied to the company structure. It would be observed by the Commission in deciding whether to choose the company structure or transport units. There is a distinction which we might discuss at length on another occasion.
  On the other point as to whether, in the view of the Government, a greater part of the disposals should be by companies or by transport units, the answer flows from what I have said, that we believe the industry should comprise small units and therefore should be disposed of in transport units. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite point of view. He thinks that emphasis should be on large units. That is a fundamental difference in principle on the whole economics of the transport industry on which I do not think that we shall ever reach agreement.
  Mr. Ross: Can we have a direct answer? The noble Lord said in another place that this would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Can the hon. Gentleman expand on that?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not see much difference between us. We believe that the major part of the industry should be in small units and, therefore, the disposal should be through transport units and only the minor part should be through the companies. The actual percentages should be determined in our view not in the Bill but at the discretion of the Commission and the Disposal Board.
  Mr. Percy Morris: The reply of the Economic Secretary encourages me to believe that the Government might accept the Opposition Amendments. The hon. Gentleman did not reply to one specific point about the urgent and paramount need of the Commission being given maximum flexibility. It is hardly necessary to remind the Minister that if and when this Bill becomes an Act he will be almost entirely dependent upon the Commission for its successful implementation.
  During earlier debates the Minister said that he was awaiting schemes which would be prepared by experts. When we asked him who the experts were, he had to recognise that they were the very people who are now in charge of the Commission and a number connected with the Railway Executive. It is useless to ask them to make a good job of the Measure if they are to be circumscribed in their opportunities. It is of paramount importance that they should be given the maximum flexibility.
  The fundamental difference between us is that the Government favour small units although, judging from the discussion today and yesterday, there is little prospect of the small man getting a foothold in the road haulage industry. He will be able to do so only by the courtesy and at the mercy of the moneylenders. The position is that the small man, if he gets in at all, will soon be swallowed up. But we favour the larger company structure. I remind the Government that the livelihood and well-being of thousands of employees in the industry are absolutely dependent upon the way in which this Bill is implemented.
  If the industry is to be split up into hundreds of small units, what prospect is there of the staff and operators maintaining their conditions of service in respect of wages, salaries and general conditions which they have been able to build up during the past four years? The obvious reply will come from the small man that he has not the resources and opportunities which the larger structure had. For that reason, the small men will whittle down the standards of employment which have been won after considerable negotiation during the time the employees have worked under nationalisation.
  I submit with all seriousness that the Government might accept our Amend-

  1231
  ments to give the Commission greater flexibility and that they might accept the larger company structure on a broader basis to safeguard the conditions of the employees. The Minister is calling upon the Commission to make proposals and to effect these changes without dislocating our transport services. This was done successfully when the 1947 Act was implemented; but it will not be so easy with this Bill. If the transport services are to be subject to serious dislocation, that will have its repercussions upon our economy and upon the well-being of the people employed in the industry.
  I beg the Minister to appreciate the need for flexibility and the provision of an opportunity for these men to work the national trunk services without dislocating the existing transport services. Many men are filled with misgiving. If there is a very large area of agreement between us, as the Economic Secretary said, why cannot the Government accept our suggestion? The hon. Gentleman's most serious criticism of our Amendments was that they are a little redundant. A little redundancy will not hurt at all. I commend the Opposition Amendments.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I cannot resist, in 30 seconds, giving an additional reason why the Opposition Amendment could not possibly have the effect that is desired. Apart altogether from the cogent reasons offered by the Economic Secretary, there is an inherent contradiction in the Amendment. Besides laying down the criterion of a higher price, it also adds the words:
  "… or for any other reason."
  If these units are capable of being formed into companies for any other reason, those reasons might include the fact that they are all in the habit of travelling to the North of England, all of a size of 10 tons and all capable of being painted red. If the Commission are to take all these factors into account equally, they cannot possibly give priority to the higher price mentioned.
  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: I intervene to develop slightly the interesting remark of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. What he said about the principle that divides us was very revealing. We have discussed that principle many times. I understood the
  1232
  hon. Gentleman to say that if the Government were disposing of a certain unit and they decided to break it up into a number of small lots and sell them to small men, then even if the aggregate of the money received was less than that which was offered for the whole of the unit if it was sold together, the Government would still be prepared to split up the unit. I gather that that is a determining principle. Even if they lose money by selling in small lots to small men they will still operate that policy. Am I right?
  Mr. Maudling: That is one of the principles of Clause 3 which is already part of the Bill accepted by the House.
  Mr. Rogers: I am glad to have that clear. It demonstrates the fallacy of this 19th century economic theory, which the Government still persist in developing, that the small man in transport is in a superior capacity to small men in any other industry. The whole trend of industry since the Industrial Revolution has been the elimination of the small man. One of the basic principles that human beings discovered after many years of co-existence was that co-operation was the law of life. As machinery in transport developed, we discovered that by co-operation and by the development of living together in industry we could devise systems and operational schemes which would enable us to cut down overhead costs and thus give a better service to the community at a cheaper price.
  It is false to say that this argument which applies in general to industry does not apply to road haulage. It does. I guarantee that in disposing of the road haulage section of the activities of the Commission, if the Government are prepared to dispose of it in large lots—using that term in relation to no special number of vehicles at the moment—they will, in the public interest, get a much greater sum of money than they will if they split it up into one- or two-lorry sales.
  6.30 p.m.
  The businessman who will buy those lorries knows that an operational unit of 100, 200 or 500 vehicles is much more efficient than a collection of vehicles bought in small numbers. He knows that the amount of profit which he can make by buying up 400 or 500 vehicles is much

  1233
  greater in proportion to the overheads than it would be if he bought half a dozen. People like Fisher Renwick and Bouts-Tillotson, before the war, operated on that principle, because from their long experience they knew that the greater their services and the larger the number of lorries at their disposal, the smaller were their overheads, and, therefore, the better the price they could give the customer and, in general, the better the service which they could provide for the community.
  If the Government would only recognise that their idea that road haulage is in some way different from the rest of industry throughout the world, and would recognise that the small unit is not more economical than the large one, they would realise that even at this late stage, by abandoning this out-dated idea, they would be doing a great service to the country, which is receiving a rather rough deal under this Bill.
  This is a shocking Bill, and I am very sad about it. I think it will wreck a fine transport system, but if we are to have it for the short time that this Government remains in office, obviously we have to accept the principle. If we are to dispose of the road haulage services, I think that the great mass of the people, who in the end have to foot the bill, have a right to expect that as large a sum as possible will be extracted from private enterprise, by fair means and not foul, that is, by means of what the market will offer. If the Government would recognise that they cannot provide a better service except by selling these vehicles in larger groups, and that they will only get a better price in this way, we should have some degree of satisfaction in agreeing to this Lords Amendment.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is true that the main difference between the two sides of the House is on the question of how this sale of road transport units is to be conducted and what is the best method in the interests of the nation's economy and well-being.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury always makes the position quite clear and leaves nothing ambiguous in his interventions, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary, after whose contributions we do not know where we are. The Economic Secretary made it perfectly clear—and it is important to get it on
  1234
  the record—that in the Clause dealing with the sale of transport units the intentions of the Government are clearly set out. Subsection (3) states:
  "the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale,".
  That, in itself, is the whole principle to which we are opposed. We say that is wrong. Merely to provide for that, notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, is surely not right. If these people's resources are such that they are not able to give the efficient service which the country has a right to expect, I should have thought that they should not be allowed to operate at the expense of the nation. The whole trouble with nationalised industry is that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Liberal Party as well, regard an industry which is nationalised as being the private concern of the Labour Party, and whatever else they do, they must smash it, hurt it and harm it wherever they can.
  We go right back to the principle referred to in the early days of this Bill. What we would have liked, at the very beginning of the progress of this Bill, was an independent inquiry. None of us would have said that that was wrong, and I am certain that, if a Labour Government had been returned to power, we should, without doubt, have inquired into the whole workings of the transport industry to see how it could be improved I am all for it.
  What we are trying to do in this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to secure that we get the highest price for these units. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wanted to know what was the definition of the words "for any other reason," but I thought he would understand that we want to get the best price when we are selling these vehicles. We want not only to ensure that the best price is received for them, but that the units can give the service that is required by the people who want to use them, and these are the considerations which should actuate the Disposal Board. In spite of what the Economic Secretary has just said—and I admire him for being

  1235
  straightforward—I hope the Government will come to the view that that is the wish of the country.
  Mr. Ross: I do not think we can be very satisfied with what we have heard from the Minister, and we are certainly left with some rather serious questions still to consider, especially when we remember what has been said in another place, where these matters were discussed. For instance, there is still the question of "exceptional cases" to be cleared up, because we are still in doubt as to what that phrase means. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury cannot possibly claim to have made perfectly clear, in both his attempts at explanation, just what is intended by the Government, and it really is a matter of considerable importance.
  When Lord Selkirk introduced it on behalf of the Government in another place, he said that the purpose of the new Clause was threefold. First of all, it was to allow people to operate on a very much larger scale. Then the noble Lord said that its purpose was to achieve two things. It would enable the setting up of an organisation which could carry on all services, and secondly, ensure that the service should be taken over without any cessation of operations. These observations were followed up by other noble Lords whose political opinions are not the same as mine, and they were welcomed by them because, they said, by this means they would obviate confusion, inefficiency and the complete lack of efficient road services during the transition period.
  If we are to be left with the impression that this is only to operate in exceptional circumstances, it means that only in exceptional circumstances are we going to get well-run, efficient and continuing transport services. By putting on this continued limitation, what the Government are saying is, "We are going to break up this well-run organisation, which is providing efficient and satisfactory services, and we are deliberately going to plump for confusion."
  There is another matter which has been referred to here. We put down this Amendment to the Lords Amendment asking that greater consideration should be given to the question of the highest price because of what was said in another
  1236
  place by certain Conservative noble Lords, who recommended this method of transferring national property not only because of its painlessness, but also because it was the most profitable way for the Government to do it, from the point of view of the taxpayer. If we are selling three buses or three lorries, and nothing else, we shall get more or less scrap prices, but if we are selling a business it will attract greater tenders.
  The Minister has a very high responsibility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the taxpayer. Judging by all we heard during the Budget debates, and remembering that on the claims we have made for various sections of the community we were told that the money was not there, we must realise that between £30 million and £50 million is at stake in the present case. It is not good enough for the Government to deny us our claims in order to save money, and then to throw away money by denying us efficient transport. We are told that only in exceptional cases shall we get continuity of service. Those are not my words but the words of the noble Lord in introducing this proposal on behalf of the Government. He said:
  "The object of this new scheme is to create an organisation which can carry on a service … keeping the present service going. The object of this structure is to enable an organisation to be built up so that the service can be taken straight over without any cessation of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1187.]
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some clearer idea, and a real lead on this matter. I have listened to the Minister of Transport during the past day and night and I got no clue from him that he is interested in the national well-being. We have just had an amazing demonstration from his hon. Friend, so we fall back upon the Parliamentary Secretary. Here is a great opportunity for him. Let him take an example from Lord Winston—[Interruption.] I am sorry. That is the name of a horse. I meant Lord Swinton. If the underlying principle on which the Government would go to work, and the criterion by which they were willing to judge whether or not this would be used were this, we would gladly accept it:
  "We may find it a useful adjunct to the normal practice of sales of units for cash to have a company structure, so that, in appropriate cases"—

  1237
  not in exceptional cases—
  "a company may be created which owns the vehicles, the garages and other ancillary assets." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953: Vol. 180, c. 1193.]
  If the Minister is to leave the Commission and the Board to judge the appropriate nature of the cases while he himself is properly going to consult the national well-being and to have regard to his responsibility as Minister of Transport for continuity and efficiency of service, he must stop talking about it as being useful in exceptional cases. Efficiency must not be exceptional. It should be normal.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not sure why the small man must be brought into this matter. I never understand who or what the small man is. I should have thought that, like most of us, he spent his life producing things, consuming things, and, from time to time, having some form of recreation. While the small man is producing things, we have to look at him according to the wishes of the people working in the trade. They seem to be about the same size, whether they are working for the Commission, for a large company, or for a small company. Why a man should suddenly become smaller because he gets profit instead of wages is a metaphysical problem that I have never been able to answer, but it lies apparently at the roots of Tory philosophy, a place to which I have never been able to penetrate.
  Next we have the small man consuming things—in this particular instance, consuming 'bus services—wanting to be carried about the country or having his goods carried about the country for him. Not every parcel of goods belongs to a very large concern. These services are sometimes used by small men. We might therefore have some regard to the efficiency of the service. This is no place for joking, so we will not say anything about recreation but leave that out this time. We have had the small man as a producer and next as a consumer or user. Why it should be limited to the circumstances of the small proprietor I have never understood and do not understand now.
  This is a rather curious piece of Government policy in the matter of selling transport units. The Government are so profoundly penny wise and pound foolish.
  1238
  They go out of their way to propose cuts in adult education, to shut up museums for a day or two and heaven knows what else in the way of petty economies. When it comes to the principle of the matter, as it does in this case, the Government are apparently perfectly willing to sacrifice the best way of getting a good price for public assets to the ideological notion, not of the small man but merely of the small proprietor, who is, after all, rather a different being.
  It is worth remembering, when we are considering these Amendments, that the original object of the Clause was to secure a better price. It actually came from the proposals of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) who may be said to be the original father of it and who got a lot of support from this side of the Chamber. He gave his own reasons. He was affected, and rightly so, by the prospective sizes of the transport units. The worse the price we get, under the machinery of the Bill, the longer or the larger the levy. The small man has to be considered from that point of view too.
  That was the reason this machinery was put in. It was accepted in principle by the Minister, on Report, though it was not introduced at that stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it amiss if I say that when he replied in Committee to his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, he did not reply at all to this point. Perhaps he did not quite follow it. At any rate, on Report the Minister came along and said he had had talks with the Commission and he told us all about it, quite a lot. He said that the Commission were heartily in favour of this. He said:
  "The Commission have most strongly urged that a limited application of the company principle would not only facilitate disposal but would very much help them in dealing with the highly complicated internal problems."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1933.]
  I suppose that holds good still. They said:
  "it would help them considerably if there were permissive provision in the Bill for some such company structure."
  There was also the point that
  "… some such structure might well help the confidence of the staff by identifying the staff with a particular part of an undertaking which was to be disposed of as a whole. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1933–4.]

  1239
  All these are perfectly good reasons, as it seems to me, and they were the Minister's own reasons for introducing this piece of machinery. At that stage, at any rate, there was no question whatever of any conflict of principle about it.
  The task of the Commission at that stage was to obtain the best possible price, having regard to the considerations in Clause 3 of the Bill and that, subject to minor considerations, still is their duty with regard to disposal and, of course, the duty of the Board as well. In all the circumstances, I do not understand why a question about the rights or merits or virtues of the small man prevents the Government from accepting this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. This Amendment has a point, but it is a small and limited point. It still makes the general question to be considered by the Commission one of expediency. It leaves open the general grounds for expediency, for instance, the type to which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred a little while ago.
  Some of the grounds which the noble Lord gave were quite serious. One might have quite good reasons for a service in some particular area or on some road being in company form. But I should like to give a much simpler example, one which I understand has been given by Government spokesmen in this House. One could easily have a small family business which was in company form before nationalisation. If it is to be given back to the small man, or, in this instance the small family, there is something to be said for using this machinery to do it.
  Mr. Maudling: That is precisely the effect of the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. Mitchison: Quite, and if that is so, why should this Clause or this Amendment to the Lords Amendment give us any difficulty whatever, because of what I call the small man philosophy of the party opposite? All that is being done here is to say, "It shall still be a question of general expediency, but we call your attention to one particular point and that is to the securing of higher prices for the property." What is wrong with that? When one is considering the disposal of public property, is the party opposite prepared to say that that is not
  1240
  one of the overriding points? Are hon. Members opposite prepared to say that that was not the point which led the hon. Member for Hall Green to propose this machinery originally?
  It was the reason which the hon. Member gave originally and, as I understand it, it was one of the reasons which appealed to the Minister when he accepted the idea in principle. I should have thought that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would have had a special interest in this matter. I cannot understand why he should refuse an Amendment from us which has the limited effect of continuing to direct the Commission and the Board to the need to obtain the highest possible prices for these public assets which they are selling.
  I really fail to appreciate what the grounds of refusal can be. It seems to me that this has little or nothing to do with the question whether units which are bought are small or large. This machinery can apply just as much to a small unit as to a large one. It seems to me a complete misconception to refuse this small Amendment to the Lords Amendment on grounds which seem to have very little to do with it.
  Dr. Horace King: I intervene in this debate among experts with some diffidence, but this Amendment to the Lords Amendment seems to me to contain one of the more serious aspects of our opposition to the Bill. I have not joined in the debate with the team of my hon. Friends who have done such excellent service during the discussions of this Bill, but I have spoken on the Bill in the country at great length. One of the charges which I made against the Government was that they seemed to be doing everything they could to prevent our obtaining the maximum price for what they are selling to private owners again.
  The Minister, who has done a remarkable job day by day in Committee and all through last night—and I only wish that his abilities were employed in a better cause—could shorten the debate and meet one of our difficulties by accepting this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. From the beginning, by the structure of the Disposal Board and by advertising the fact that British transport

  1241
  was something with no goodwill, by saying again, even during the discussions in the early hours of this morning, that he was selling something which was infinitely inferior to what we know it to be, in all these things, instead of protecting Britain's interest and serving the country as the Minister for a nationalised industry, the right hon. Gentleman has seemed to go out of his way to ensure that the price he secures shall be as low as possible.
  Our Amendment is simple. We ask that the powers which this Clause gives shall continue to be powers to secure the highest price for what Britain is selling to private individuals. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should oppose our Amendment.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) raised the question of giving the Commission flexibility. That is important, but it does not arise under this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. The main point was raised by the hon. Member for Kensington,
  North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—about the smaller units. One argument is that transport is more efficient in the interests of the whole nation if it is run by small units.
  It is because we consider it in the whole national economic interest that transport should be organised largely in small units that we propose that two considerations should be taken into account by the Commission and the Board. The first is small unit organisation, and the second is the securing of the highest possible price. I think that we have covered the question of the highest possible price, and that is why I think that this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is redundant. For that reason and also for the drafting reason which has been mentioned earlier, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 295.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Adams, Richard

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Albu, A. H.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hannan, W.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hastings, S.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Balfour, A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Deer, G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Bartley, P.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Bence, C. R.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Holman, P.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgweed

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Benson, G.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Beswick, F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Edelman, M.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Fienburgh, W.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Isaaca, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Janner, B.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Follick, M.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Foot, M. M.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Forman, J. C.

  Jonkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Burke, W. A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Johnsion, Douglas(Paisley)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Butler Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Callaghan L. J.

  Gibson C. W

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Carmichael, J.

  Glanville, James

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Keenan W

  Champion, A. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  King Dr. H. M.

  Clunie, J.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Kinley, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Collick, P. H.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Cove, W. G.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Linderen, G. S.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Pearson, A.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Logan, D. G.

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Poole, C. C.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  McGovern, J

  Popplewell, E

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Porter, G.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  McLeavy, F.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thornton, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Rankin, John

  Timmons, J.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Reeves, J.

  Tomney, F.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Manuel, A. C.

  Rhodes, H.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Richards, R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Mellish, R. J

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wells, Percy (Faveraham)

  Messer, F.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  West, D. G.

  Monslow, W.

  Ross, William

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Moody, A. S.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Morley, R.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Short, E. W.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Wigg, George

  Mort, D. L.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Moyle, A.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mulley, F. W

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Willey, F. T.

  Murray J. D

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Nally, W.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, Rt. Holt. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  O'Brien, T.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Orbach, M.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Oswald, T.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Padley, W. E.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Pannell, Charles

  Stress, Dr. Barnett

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Parker, J.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Mr. Royle and Mr. James Johnson.

  Paton, J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Donner, P. W.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Buchan-Hopburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. I

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Duthie, W. S

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. N.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Carr, Robert

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Erroll, F. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Channon, H.

  Fell, A.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Barber, Anthony

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Barlow, Sir John

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Cole, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Colegate. W. A

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Fort, R.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Foster, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Birch, Nigel

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Black, C. W.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Boothby, R. J. G

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Braine, B. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Gower, H. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  1244

  1245

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Grimond, J.

  MoCallum, Major D.

  Russell, R. S.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Harden J. R. E.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Shepherd, William

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V.(Macclesfield)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hay, John

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Heath, Edward

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Soames, Capt. C

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Speir, R. M.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Marples, A. E.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Stevens, G. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Maudling, R.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Holt, A. F.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Storey, S.

  Hope, Lord John

  Mellor, Sir John

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Studholme H. G.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Monckton, R. Hon. Sir Walter

  Summers, G. S.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J.P. L.(Hereford)

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Noble, Cmdr A. H. P

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Odey, G. W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Jennings, R.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Orr, Capt. L, P. S.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kaberry, D.

  Osborne C.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Partridge, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wade, D. W.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

  Wellwood, W.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Profumo, J. D.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Wills, G.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  York, C.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.

  Mr. W. T. Proctor: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out from the third "section," to the first "they."
  Clause 3 (3) of the Bill has been referred to previously, and the principle contained therein is that the transport units are to be arranged in such manner that those people who were in the transport industry before shall have an opportunity of returning and that the claims
  1246
  of the small man shall be considered. By deleting that principle from the consideration of the Commission when they are forming these companies we are expressing our point of view that a company structure should be created for the purposes of this Bill.
  Accepting the fact that under this Bill a large amount of the road transport of the Commission must be transferred to private enterprise, we are now accepting a proposal which was first put forward

  1247
  by an hon. Member opposite, who said that the company structure was a convenient method of dealing with this matter. We do not think that it should be confined to small lots and that is why we have put down this Amendment.
  By creating a company structure we can do a great deal to preserve the wonderful organisation created by the Road Haulage Executive. In my view, this is the most important aspect of this Bill. We want to preserve, as far as possible, the structure of the Road Haulage Executive, which serves the community in such a marvellous way, which has been spoken of so highly by the traders and is regarded by the workers as essential.
  I would draw the attention of the House to the dangerous times in which we live. While the international tension has been somewhat relieved we must never forget that we may be landed in an emergency. When the Government were faced with such an emergency in 1939 their first action was to create, from the small units which the Economic Secretary seems to hold dear to his heart —though I cannot understand why he does so on behalf of the Tory Party— a temporary war-time organisation to preserve the national interests and carry out national transport work. We shall be taking a step in the wrong direction if we disband this great organisation.
  We now have an opportunity to reconsider this matter. Since this Bill first came before the House there have been many compromises. The right hon. Gentleman was not at that time the Minister of Transport, and he has had some beneficent effect inside the Tory Party which has persuaded them to abandon the wildest of their schemes. The first scheme was that all road transport should be taken away from the Commission. Since then we have had a compromise. First, the Commission was allowed to retain the Road Transport of the old railway companies. Then, a figure of six-fifths of this was introduced and now it has become five-fourths. That compromise has made a real change, and the Government now have an opportunity to reconsider the principle they adopted with regard to these new companies and making some mitigation
  1248
  of the chaos which they proposed to create.
  7.15 p.m.
  I do not suppose it is much use for hon. Members on this side of the House to tell them what faces them if they go on with their scheme, but a most interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). He said, on 3rd December, 1952:
  "What worries me is this. If we go ahead, without any precautions of a statutory character introduced into these Clauses, with the sale of these vehicles at the speed which the Minister indicated—he has suggested that they should all be sold by the end of next year and that the 25-mile limit will be removed "—
  The Minister of Transport interposed to say:
  "At the end of the year after."
  The hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire continued:
  "Then I am afraid that we shall be placing upon our roads a volume of traffic and a number of vehicles greater than they are capable of carrying. That is by far the most important point, and it has not been mentioned by either side. Hon. Gentlemen referred all the time to what the market can absorb. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what the roads can carry. That is what worries me and that is the point I wish to put to the Minister."
  At that stage there was considerable interruption on the part of his hon. Friends and he then did a remarkable thing. Instead of facing hon. Members on this side of the House he turned and faced his hon. Friends and addressed them. He said:
  "My hon. Friend can say that I am talking nonsense until he is black in the face.… I have been told that many times, but I have often proved that it was not so. I say in a friendly spirit that if that happens and if over the next five years we put an absolutely uncontrolled volume of motor vehicles on the roads, then a future Government will have to introduce a Measure for the control of transport far greater than anything the House of Commons has passed so far."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 1591–2.]
  I ask the Minister of Transport and his hon. Friend to heed the wise words of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire. They do not take much notice of what we say but it behoves them to consider his words, especially as he has pointed out that on many occasions his prophecies have proved correct. One of the benefits of Parliament is that we get

  1249
  very many opportunities of reconsidering matters. A foolish action can be prevented at a very late stage, and it is still not too late for the Government to reconsider the principle which underlies this Bill.
  To sell the road transport industry on the basis of small units is economic madness of the most extraordinary character, and I cannot understand how sensible people, in touch with transport experts, can persist in such a proposal as this. In my opinion, the Minister has improved the Bill considerably since he has been in charge of it. The amount of transport left to the Commission makes it possible for them to rub along for a period after this iniquitous action has been taken, but I hope he will consider the situation very carefully. Many big companies were in existence before transport was nationalised and to limit us, as we are limited by the Lords Amendments—if they are carried out literally—to small units, is to go dead against the economic trends of modern industrial civilisation as well as against the interests of the nation.
  Why is all this being done? We have heard many eloquent speeches, especially from the Leader of the House, about losses incurred by the Labour Government, especially in connection with groundnuts. I have heard him make many very eloquent speeches on that subject. On one occasion he mentioned the word "bankruptcy" about 25 times in 25 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the Amendment about groundnuts.
  Mr. Proctor: I was drawing a comparison, Sir. As a nation, and which the House as a whole was responsible, we went into the groundnuts enterprise as a great adventure and lost many millions of pounds, but the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite are frittering away £50 million of public money, in all probability. This loss is being deliberately incurred for no purpose that I can find. I will not pursue the matter further, but I thought the point was worth making.
  Why are we going on with this? I believe that one of the reasons is that it is one of the promises made by the Tory Party at the last General Election. The Prime Minister has insulated himself from public affairs. He has decided to give
  1250
  his colleagues a mandate to denationalise. He does not come here to listen to our debates so that we have no possible means of influencing him, but I have no doubt that he has given them a mandate. I hope that they will try to influence him to reconsider the whole matter and that we shall have another look at the possibility of adopting the company structure in a wider sense. If the proposals suggested by hon. Members opposite were developed, and if we disposed of a very large part of the road transport of the country to private enterprise on the company structure, I believe we could preserve the framework of the organisation which the Road Transport Executive has brought into being throughout the country.
  I want to outline a few of the advantages which we should receive. In the first place, we should not lose much money on the transactions. I see that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is in his place and indicates his support; and I hope he will make a speech to prove that we shall not lose money. The present anticipation of the Government is that they will lose anything between £25 million and £50 million. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kidderminster will suggest that if we adopt the company structure outlined in the Bill, with proper modifications which we suggest, we shall not lose any money at all. What a wonderful thing that would be! What a relief for the local authorities who are struggling with the problem of how they will pay the Transport Levy. What a wonderful consideration for all those people who will be compelled to pay the Transport Levy, but will get none of the benefits of the Bill.
  If we could dispose of the nationalised transport to some new, great companies on the basis of not losing much money, that would be a great success for the Exchequer and well worth while for the country. I think a mandate could be given to the Transport Commission whereby they could promote these companies in the way indicated in the Lords Amendments and could dispose of the shares. I will make a suggestion which may be developed further by my hon. Friends—that it is not necessary to dispose of the whole of the shares. If the Transport Commission kept a financial

  1251
  interest in these great companies, that would allow them to co-ordinate the companies and to make sure that they started in an efficient manner. We might then have some kind of co-ordination between road and rail through these great companies.
  The view which I take is that the future of transport is not on the roads of this country alone and not on the railways alone. The future of transport is in road and rail co-operation, and it is essential that we should keep sufficiently large units in the road transport section to obtain that co-operation between road and rail. It is high time we got the backroom boys to work on the problem of road and rail transport. It does not seem to me beyond the realms of modern ingenuity to be able to transfer a load from the body of a road transport vehicle on to a rail vehicle and to run it to its destination at 40 miles per hour, thus relieving the roads of a great deal of the present congestion.
  I appeal to the Minister to take this matter seriously and to have a word with the Prime Minister about whether this idea of a company structure cannot mitigate the evils which otherwise will be done to the community. I believe that along these lines we could set up an efficient transport system, but we cannot do that if we are tied down to small units. There is something laughable about the thought of the Tory Party supporting the small man. As far as I can see, the conspiracy seems to be to create a small man by means of the United Dominions Trust and in various other ways and then to buy him up afterwards. That was done between the wars and it is very likely that the financial sharks will be glad to create those possibilities again and make a double profit.
  In the House this afternoon are two of my hon. Friends with whom I was working when I was on the railway system in South Wales. We on this side are here especially for the purpose of looking after the interests of the people. One of the things which breaks my heart is the fact that so little consideration is being given to the man who is to lose his job as a result of this wicked interference with the organisation of transport.
  1252
  I suggest that it is quite possible that by means of this company structure we can preserve his job for him. It may be that the financial sharks will not make quite as much out of it as otherwise would be the case, but it would be in the interest of the men working on the job. I remind the House of the man who says, "I worked for five years previously for a great transport company and I was taken over by the British Road Services and have worked for them ever since; I have a house and I have children going to a secondary school; I shall be up against it and I shall lose my job as a result of the interference of Parliament." It makes me feel ashamed of the British Constitution that we can do such a thing as lightheartedly as the Tory Party are doing it at present.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Government ought to take back this matter and look at the interest of the vast number of road transport and railway workers who are to be adversely affected as the result of these activities. The other day one of them said something to me on which, perhaps, hon. Members opposite might ponder a little. I do not know whether I shall be out of order in repeating it. He said, "I do not think that Winston would do this with the miners." An hon. Member opposite said today that we on this side would go to any extreme, clean or unclean, in our opposition to this Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is really taking the whole Bill now and not addressing his remarks to the Amendment before the House. We have already had the discussion on the Bill.
  Mr. Proctor: I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was intending to finish almost on another sentence, but I would point out the very great difficulties under which we labour in regard to this Bill. The Government Guillotined the Bill, and, therefore, we were not allowed full and free discussion when it came before the House.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the merits and demerits of the Guillotine procedure on an earlier stage of this Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: It really is not, but, on the other hand, hon. Members can

  1253
  mention it. There is too much general discussion on the merits of the Bill. Hon. Members should bear in mind that the Bill has passed this House and that we cannot go back and do again the business that we have done before. If hon. Members would focus their minds on the Amendment under discussion, I think we should get on better.
  Mr. Proctor: I was merely pointing out the great difficulties in which we find ourselves in dealing with this matter, Sir. 'These Lords Amendments which the House is now considering are of a very wide character and contain as much matter, or even more, as many of the Bills which come before us. This proposal to create a company structure to take over and operate the road transport services of this country is a matter of very wide concern. If we allow the Amendments to go through without indicating what we think the Government should do, then it is too late to do anything in the matter. I thought that we might have a fairly wide discussion on this Amendment, in which we seek to do away with the limitation placed on the Transport Commission as regards the small men and to allow a bigger structure.
  I have said practically all that I want to say, but I am concerned that my hon. Friends should not be prevented from taking the opportunity of supporting my appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to mend their ways in this respect.
  Mr. Hale: I have sought to listen to the very able and moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), which was accompanied by a running commentary from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who we always hear on these topics, even though it is sometimes only sotto voce. He seems to be regarded as the Beau Brummell of the managerial revolution, and no doubt at a later stage we shall hear him addressing us at full length and giving us the benefit of his wisdom.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite will not be deterred from listening to him by any feeling of ineffectiveness or lack of knowledge on his part. We on this side always associate the hon. Gentleman with booms rather than slumps, and we shall, therefore, hail him with pleasure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although he may have
  1254
  thought that some of his colleagues did not make any impression on the House yesterday, what they said was not without some effect because I observed from time to time on the face of the Patronage Secretary a look of deep emotion as he listened to some of his colleagues.
  Yesterday, I ventured to give the House the benefit of my knowledge upon Amendments I supported, but I have now been called upon to support an Amendment of which I have no understanding at all. In those circumstances, it was quite natural that I should wonder whether I should inflict my observations upon the House. It seems to me that in a House of experts one ought to leave the matter to those who have an understanding of it. But it is still the duty of hon. Members to point out some of the difficulties under which they labour.
  We are considering a Lords Amendment of some 3,000 words, running into several pages, which was explained in another place by the Minister concerned in a speech which lasted less than five minutes and occupied one and a quarter columns in the records of the other place. I have read through that speech several times and have tried to understand the scheme proposed, but every time I read it I could not believe it. It seemed so fantastic. This is the scheme which is before the House at the moment.
  I am quite sure that at some stage we shall have an explanation from the Minister. I think it right to point out that not only do we have no explanation in the Lords, but we get no explanation in the Commons until all the Amendments to the Lords Amendments are disposed of, so that it is only when it is too late to put the thing right that we are told, what the Clause means and how it is intended to operate.
  I feel, therefore, although, as I say, I rose with trepidation and hesitancy and with a certain sense of insufficiency— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am very grateful for the assurances of hon. Members opposite, because at a moment like this I feel fortified more than I usually do by their observations. I am at least capable of knowing what the Amendment means and the effect it will have.
  As I understand the proposal, it is that we should take the transport industry of the country—a living, vital link in all

  1255
  our national services—at a time when we are being informed by many Ministers that OUT situation in regard to defence matters, and so on, is rather difficult and that we are facing the possibility of economic crisis and are battling for national existence, and dispose of it on precisely the basis that one disposes of a bankrupt firm. I know I must be wrong about this, and that there must be some other provisions which we shall have fully explained to us later.
  As I say, I read the Clause more than once with all the care I could lavish upon it. Perhaps the words of Lord Lucas of Chilworth will bring light to the House, and, therefore. I propose to quote his words.
  He said:
  "The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his Second Reading speech, maintained the same point—that there is only one way in which you can sell the bulk of these other assets: by hiving them off into companies, not selling them as chattels. The only way you will get rid of the buildings and depots is by organising limited liability structures and wrapping them round, the kernel of a transport business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1188.]
  Mr. Ian Harvey: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to quote at length from discussions which have only recently taken place in another place?
  Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was quoting a Minister in another place?
  Mr. Hale: No, Sir, an Opposition speech in the debate that took place in another place on this very matter we are discussing.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not in order. It is only statements by Ministers that may be quoted.
  Hon. Members: Paraphrasing.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is paraphrasing, that is another matter.
  Mr. Hale: I apologise, Sir.
  Mr. Renton: The Minister overcame this difficulty, Sir, in a manner satisfactory, I think, to the House yesterday by inviting the attention of hon. Members to the columns in the Lords' HANSARD in which statements could be found.
  Mr. Hale: I am so inundated with advice that I am in danger of being submerged. Let me remind the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) that only recently the Bar Council made a pronouncement about the tendering of advice to people who have not solicited it.
  Mr. Speaker: I deal with points of order, and since I am asked for advice I must reciprocate, and my advice to the hon. Member is that it would be a good thing if he came to the substance of his Amendment.
  Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I have every intention of doing that, but I wanted to express my regret at unwittingly going outside the rules of order. I explained to you before the difficulty I am in. I was actuated by the noblest of motives. That quotation was so brilliant and unusual that I thought it would be improper of me merely to paraphrase it lest I gave the impression that I had adumbrated it myself. It is precisely because of the difficulty that I have already explained I am labouring under that I went beyond the bounds of order, and the difficulty is of understanding the Clause; and so it is very difficult to know when one is getting out of order in talking about it.
  Mr. Speaker: If that is really the difficulty under which the hon. Member is labouring—and I have some sympathy with him in that—I would remind him that he can always fulfil the duty he has undertaken by supporting the Amendment formally.
  Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, and had I thought of that before that would have got me out of my major difficulty, but you will appreciate that having embarked upon an oration, it is practically impossible to close it down halfway. However, I shall try to bring it to a speedy and reasonable conclusion.
  The precise proposal of my hon. Friend's Amendment I am now supporting is with regard to Clause 3 (3). If our Amendment to the Lords Amendment were carried the Lords new Clause would read:
  "If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act. be disposed of under this section they may make over that property …"

  1257
  Clause 3 (3) of the Bill deals with the determination of what are to be transport units for which persons are invited to tender. It says:
  "In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender … the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision but subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, no transport unit shall, without the approval of the Minister, include more than fifty motor vehicles.…"
  We are now seeking to eliminate the words in the Lords Amendment making reference to that subsection (3) which would not inhibit the Transport Commission from carrying out major operations now envisaged. The difficulty is to envisage this major operation and find out just how it would operate in relation to this limitation.
  As I have said, my first reading seemed to indicate that the proposal merely was to take a block of road haulage vehicles, and, presumably, a depot, or a geographical area, and, to paraphrase words used in another place, to "hive it off," and to wrap round the vehicles, assign them to a company to be formed, or for shares of a company to be formed to belong to the Commission, and at some stage by some devious means for those shares to be transferred. I do not think it would be conceived for a moment that the operation could be done having regard to the needs of persons desiring to enter or re-enter the industry without adequate means to do so. I do not think that was meant. What I think was meant was not to have too many hiving off operations. I think that is right. It seems that the Minister and I are in complete agreement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In so far as the hon. Gentleman has read the Clause.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hale: It is a new Clause of 3,000 words and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to read it to the House now. The difficulty in complying with this requirement of subsection (3) is that those shares would be absolutely dead shares in a company with no live organism of any kind. There is no provision of a managing director;
  1258
  no provision of a board of directors; no provision of a staff of any kind. I do not want to be unfair about this. I want to put this as fairly as I can because I think it is an important matter.
  I know it will be said that, of course, there is a staff available. It will be said, "Take a selected area in Ashby de la Zouch or Middle Wallop, or somewhere where there is a centre, and you will see that we propose to establish a fairly large company for this area and that there is available at the moment a staff for the unit." But how long does it remain available?
  I can put the matter quite shortly, but I must put it because I know that it may be raised again and I do not want to go over the ground again and again. I am seriously asking for information about this. Are the Commission authorised anywhere to operate those vehicles until they have disposed of the shares, and, if so, how long are they authorised to operate them? It surely is a vital question.
  Mr. Maudling: It may be a vital question, but I do not see what it has to do with this particular Amendment.
  Mr. Hale: That is most informative of the attitude of the Government on a matter of this kind. I have already pointed out that there is a Lords Amendment 3,000 words long. It is introduced in another place with no adequate explanation. We then, under the curious and archaic rules of this House, have to discuss our Amendments to the Lords Amendment before we have an explanation of the Lords Amendment, and when the Minister is asked a question so that we may be informed, so that we may be enabled to conduct the debate in decency and tolerance, he says, "Oh, no, we are not going to tell you."
  He does not even say that he does not know. He says that some time later the information may be forthcoming. Unless there is adequate provision for carrying on this organisation this great national industry will be sold like a bankrupt firm that has closed its doors.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One of the main purposes of the whole of the proposed company structure is that the Commission can carry on until the moment of sale with those transport units that are com-

  1259
  posed in companies, attracting to themselves traffic, retaining, one hopes, a number of the staff, right up to the moment of sale. I feel that there will be no dislocation, because this would be one way of preventing dislocation. That is why the proposed new Clause has been introduced. I agree that the rules of order of this House make explanations of these Lords Amendments difficult, but that has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Hale: No, but the right hon. Gentleman has now been able to set out the matter and give information we have been asking for for the last quarter of an hour, and he has given it succinctly and informatively. There is only one other piece of information I should like to have. Where, in this Clause, is that authorisation contained; because the Commission are precluded by other Clauses?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That may be a very proper question, but I do not think that it arises on this Amendment.
  Mr. Hale: In the absence of an explanation it is, of course, exceedingly difficult to say precisely what questions do arise on any Amendment. I would remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are discussing an Amendment which is very wide and comprehensive, and which deals with a whole question of the elimination of provisions providing for sale in small units. Therefore, I say, with very great respect to the Chair, that it seems perfectly clear that in those circumstances it would be proper to try to find out what are the terms of operation suggested for the larger units.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be very proper to find out, but it cannot be found out on this Amendment. It may be done at a later stage; I do not know.
  Mr. Hale: If I understand that Ruling, we have to discuss the Lords Amendment, upon which the information is necessary in deciding how to vote, without knowing what the information is, and we have to make up our minds by some curious process of chance. I can at least follow up one or two points. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will make it clear, because I am sure that
  1260
  we shall make more progress if he does. We seem to be getting on very well at the moment.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Either I or my hon. Friend will make the point clear when we come to move the Lords Amendment dealing with the setting up of the company structure, but now is not the time.
  Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has given certain information, but I could not really express myself as being under any deep sense of obligation for it. He rose to answer a question I put two or three minutes ago, but not the one I was about to put when I interrupted him. He has said that it is in order for him to get up and tell the House that certain provisions are there, but it would be out of order for him to tell us where they are. That seems to be a somewhat remarkabls attitude, and not quite as co-operative as he sometimes has been.
  To understand this it is necessary to have information on the question I have been putting from time to time, namely, whether it is his view that we shall hive off and wrap up these large blocks of vehicles in public companies under terms under which the Transport Commission shall operate to a very considerable extent. To what extent is it his view that the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 3 will be carried out by the Transport Commission in preserving the small unit? What is the proportion? What is the intention? Where can the Transport Commission find out how they do it? Where in the whole of our debates has that information ever been given; or where in the Bill is there a single word which shows how these words can be applied in operation and what they really mean?
  That is the dilemma we face, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with great sincerity, that he ought to consider the position in relation to this matter. Already, he is finding inevitable difficulties arising. Probably some unworthy aspersions inevitably arise; I do not know. In this Bill he has placed himself in a position of authority as high in the transport world as any dictator has ever occupied in the political world.
  Almost every disputed question goes to the Minister. Many non-disputed questions go to the Minister. He decides, apparently, all questions of how the

  1261
  vehicles are to be disposed of. Apparently, in the absence of any information to the contrary, he is the person who has to decide how many small small units there are to be and how many big small units there are to be, and what areas they are to cover. He is the person who decides how many large organisations are to be hived off and carried on.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not yet told us—I understand that we shall be told at the appropriate stage—whether he is the person who authorises how long they carry on, and for how long they could carry on in difficult circumstances. All this he has to decide Ministerially, and to some extent, as he said yesterday, politically, because certain political questions arise, some of them quasi-judicial. At the same time, in another capacity—it may be with complete propriety—he is having to be consulted by and to give certain advice and permission to the very people who will be coming to buy the units off.
  This is all very difficult, and I suggest that if, in the light of those observations, we come back to the point to which I was referring, which is the wording of the Amendment, we see that
  "If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking Should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section"—
  then we leave out the words
  "and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three.…"
  Supposing we do not carry this Amendment, but leave those words as they stand, what does it mean? How do they do it? They have to have regard to the needs of persons who desire to enter or re-enter the industry, and who, because of the inadequacy of their means, are unable to operate units in small sizes. It is intended to apply to the one-vehicle, two-vehicle or three-vehicle operator; it is intended to apply to the genuine small unit operating on its own.
  Now, how is it done? Suppose that in the Middle Wallop area there are 250 lorries operated from an organising centre, from a central garage with organising offices. What is to be done? How are they hived off? Are the whole 250 to be wrapped round the kernel of the
  1262
  garage? Is someone to decide that at Little Wallop there shall be five lorries in one small unit, that at Little Hinton there shall be six or seven lorries in another small unit, and that at Tolpuddle there shall be two? Is it to be said then that if 123 lorries are left they shall be hived off?
  Mr. Callaghan: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Minister, in view of his continuing interest in the small haulier, will permit him to come along and make favourable opportunities for the cream of the vehicles? When they have been sold off to those road hauliers at ludicrously low prices the rest will probably be left for public consumption in any way the Commission can manage, and at that stage he will ask them to form a company.
  Mr. Hale: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think he has got his priorities wrong. The widows and orphans come first, then the person who desires to enter the industry and the person who is in it. First on the list are the widows and orphans. The small haulier who wants to add to his fleet comes second on the list. Third on the list comes the hiving off of the prosperous units, with powers to the Commission for a short period until they can sell, although the Minister is not able to tell us where the power is. Fourth on the list are the Transport Commission and their vehicles which they can retain for operating the national services of the country. Fifth on the list are the chattels, and so on. I think it would be out of order to discuss the chattels, and I do want to keep myself narrowly within the limits of the Amendment.
  We are entitled to be told what is the priority at this stage of this Amendment, which deals concisely with the question of the priority of the selling off of the small units. Is the Minister sure? What is to happen first? Are the small units laid off first? If the small units are laid off, are the good lorries or the bad lorries picked out? Are they bound by the geographical considerations which operate now? If the driver is operating from a small yard in Tolpuddle, does he continue to do so? Are they all to be brought into the central organisation and then reallocated on the basis of what it is intended to do? Does the Minister know? We have discussed this matter day after day, column after column.
  Mr. David Jones: He has not got a clue.
  Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Huntingdon seems to indicate that he has some information. If so, I would welcome it, and would be prepared to withdraw perhaps some of the suggestions I have made. Indeed, I am asking for any information I can get.
  Mr. Renton: So much of the hon. Gentleman's speech has been out of order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the Committee stage of the Bill, so the hon. Member cannot speak twice.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. I was extending the courtesy of giving way in anticipation that someone was showing a very clear intention of rising. If that source of information is denied to me, I must turn to the Minister again, although without much hope, for information. Has anyone advice to give on this matter? Does anybody know anything about it? After all the United Dominions Trust are entitled to know something if they are to be given all these permissions. They must have some information. Is information being given to these people which is not being given to the House?
  Is it true that large organisations are being given additional facilities and are having more capital to invest without knowing what is going to be done, what the properties are, or what the position will be? Is this really suggested? Or is the House being constancy denied information which should be made available to it? No one can suggest that it is not in order to discuss and to ask on this particular Clause, which specially deals with small units, the Minister for all information at this stage. Nor can we go to a Division with any confidence without that information.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member will not intend to proceed to a Division until he has given the Government spokesman an opportunity of saying something.
  Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That information enables me to shorten my remarks which otherwise might have been more extensive. I shall be very grateful
  1264
  indeed if it is the intention of the Government spokesman to make a comprehensive statement on this Amendment, and I shall be most happy to listen to it.
  I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House regard this as a matter of real political importance and of real national importance. I do not think— we certainly did not in another place— that we have raised any fundamental objection to the new proposal. Indeed, we see many advantages in it. Everyone knows that, in many circumstances, the small unit in transport is uneconomic. But the whole question of priorities is as vital in this matter as it is vital in almost every political problem. The question of priorities is a matter which affects almost every consideration.
  Mr. Renton: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned perhaps a dozen times that the order of priority is important, and is that not tedious repetition?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order to mention priorities.
  Mr. Hale: The Amendment deals with priorities. The whole matter which we are discussing is whether we should give priority to the small unit over the large unit or whether we should not. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I do not recollect having mentioned this question of priorities in any similar connection before in the course of my brief remarks. I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon, in seeking to usurp the privileges of the Chair, is not rendering a very considerable service to the House.
  If the Minister will deal with this question we shall be grateful to him. I am sure that he would wish to be a democrat. It is a condemnation of our Parliamentary procedure in a matter of this kind to allow all these proposals to pass from the House without the House being given the opportunity of knowing what is intended, how the machinery is intended to be constructed, by whom it will be directed and in whose interest it will operate. That is the position today after this long debate. We are still being denied vital information.
  Mr. Maudling: I will endeavour to satisfy some of the curiosity of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).

  1265
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) moved this Amendment in a comprehensive speech which indicated to me, at any rate, that he understood very well the purpose both of the Lords Amendment and of the Amendment which he was moving. I could not help feeling that for once the very acute legal mind of the hon. Member for Oldham. West had not been fully applied to this particular Amendment. I was reminded of the story of the late Lord Hewart who said of the late Lord Birkenhead, when in his prime, that he was always most interested to hear Lord Birkenhead open a new case so as to discover which of two entirely fresh minds grasped the main facts first.
  I think that my hon. Friend has overlooked a very important legal consequence of the actual Amendment which he moved. I think that it is generally agreed that it is an advantage to make provision, as this Lords Amendment makes provision, for the Commission in certain circumstances to dispose of their property by making it over to companies and then selling the shares of the companies rather than selling them as transport units.
  That is the main provision of Section 1 of the Lords Amendment. The words which are proposed by this Amendment which we are now discussing to be left out are the words which, by reference to subsection (3), define the principles on which the Commission should act in deciding whether to apply the company structure. Therefore, it seems to me that the real point for the House to decide in discussing and deciding on this Amendment is whether or not these particular principles should be observed by the Commission in deciding whether it is expedient or not to operate through the company structure.
  Let us look at these principles in subsection (3)—and at all of them and not only part of them, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The first point is the provision that the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing opportunities for people to enter or re-enter the industry despite the fact that they may be able to operate only on a small scale. This is the point about the small unit which we discussed at some length on the previous Amendment, when I pointed out that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government, which, I know, hon. Members opposite do not share, that the transport industry will be more
  1266
  efficient in this country if, broadly speaking, it is carried on by small undertakings. It is argued by hon. Members opposite that the whole history of the industry is that it aggregates into large units.
  I cannot help remembering some of the excellent arguments made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in earlier debates, in favour of nationalisation and against private enterprise on the grounds that private enterprise always tended to monopoly, and as monopoly is a bad thing so is private enterprise a bad thing. If he is right that competitive private enterprise in industry tends to monopoly and tends to large units, is it not extraordinary that in the case of transport before nationalisation the vast majority of the lorries engaged in transport were operated in small units? Is not that clear proof that there are, in fact, special considerations affecting the transport industry which lead to a situation in transport which is not repeated in other private enterprise industries?
  Mr. James Harrison: Will the Minister take into consideration in that particular argument the fact that the war was on and zoning was operating all over the shires? Small units were being collected into large units.
  Mr. Maudling: The transport industry was inherently an industry of small units. We would say that flexibility of service to the individual customer is what is needed in transport, and this is provided by the small unit. We believe that the experience of the Road Haulage Executive shows that this cannot be provided so well by the large unit. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to accept that argument, because that is the fundamental argument between us. Therefore, I can see that hon. Members opposite would want to leave out of the Lords Amendment this provision in Clause 3 (3) with reference to the small unit, which is the argument we had on the previous Amendment. I do not think the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment noticed that there are two paragraphs to subsection (3) and the second paragraph says
  Subject as aforesaid, the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price.

  1267
  Therefore, if this Amendment is carried, and if the words are deleted, although I am sure it was not the intention of the mover, there is no reference left in the Lords Amendment to the question of the best possible price, a point to which hon. Members opposite very rightly attach considerable importance.
  Mr. Proctor: Does the hon. Gentleman put forward the extraordinary contention that the Transport Commission cannot sell anything at the best possible price unless a statutory direction to do so is in the Bill? Surely they would follow the usual commercial practice of getting the best possible price.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) so argued on the previous Amendment and said that it was most essential to see that the Commission should get the best possible price. I agree with the hon. Member that the Commission would undoubtedly try to get the highest price, but his argument is quite inconsistent with the argument put forward on the previous Amendment on the importance of putting in that reference when this Amendment deletes the only reference to the best possible price.
  Mr. Proctor: On the last Amendment, the hon. Gentleman resisted the argument of my hon. Friend and would not put in the statutory direction.
  Mr. Maudling: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Lords Amendment as it stands provides that the Commission shall have regard both to the question of small units and the best possible price. On the previous occasion hon. Members opposite were trying to insert a reference to the best possible price, which would be redundant, and now they are seeking to delete the only remaining reference to it. That would be the effect of this Amendment.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I draw attention to subsection (5) of the new Clause which refers to the price and provides
  "the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one"
  and so on. So there is a reference to the price.
  Mr. Maudling: That would be an argument against the previous Amendment,
  1268
  but that only places the obligation on the Board, not on the Commission. However, it is not on those grounds that I ask the House to reject the Amendment; this is only a technical ground. The real ground is that discussed on the previous Amendment, that we believe very strongly that it is in the interests of the transport industry that it should be organised in small units, and hon. Members opposite take a contrary view. I cannot see how we can reach agreement on this Amendment any more than we could on the previous Amendment.
  Mr. Callaghan: In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman envisage that a company will be formed as such?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not know whether the hon. Member was here when we discussed the previous Amendment.
  Mr. Callaghan: I was not.
  Mr. Maudling: I quite understand. I explained that the Commission are given the initiative, subject to the approval of the Board, to adopt the company structure if that can be done consistently with the two principles of the small unit and the best possible price, which to some extent conflict. But the Commission and the Disposal Board between them will decide how those principles should be applied in practice to the disposal as a transport unit and the company structure.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Poole: I have always been somewhat allergic to economists I am more allergic now, having heard the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We are now suffering from the disabilities of having a Government introduce a Bill without knowing what they wanted to do in the Bill when they started. Since then they have been altering the Bill at every stage and in every place and in every conceivable Clause. The resultant Act of Parliament will be a completely unworkable Measure. I cannot see how the Economic Secretary to the Treasury can have this new Clause on the company structure without accepting our Amendment.
  As I understand the company structure, the Lords Amendment provides for the establishment of holding companies to which would be transferred blocks of assets and blocks of vehicles in order that they might function as

  1269
  fairly large units. The small individual concern of one or two vehicles would be sold off to the small man. But what the Government are trying to do is to ride two horses at the same time. They want to appease the Road Haulage Association and provide a large unit under the company structure, yet they want to make it appear to the small man that at the same time they are protecting him. Of course it cannot be done. One cannot create the small man in whom the Economic Secretary to the Treasury seems so interested. Is he the man who is going into the market to buy up shares in a company constituted under the company structure of the Lords Amendment?
  Mr. Maudling: The small man we envisage would acquire vehicles through the system of transport units, and the larger operation would be through the company structure.
  Mr. Poole: If the larger unit is to be constituted through the medium of the company structure, how is it proposed to resist the Opposition Amendment? The Amendment seeks to delete subsection (3), the main provision of which is that a man would be prevented from taking part in this operation because his resources were such that he could operate only on a small scale. The Economic Secretary should not have reproached my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for not having read the Clause. I am sure the Economic Secretary has not read it or, if he has, he has done so with a lack of understanding. He is now making confusion more confounded by telling us that the provisions of this Clause are for the larger unit and he is leaving in the Bill provisions that there shall be included facilities for the man who has not got the resources to buy up the larger unit.
  If the Government really want a workable company structure, they ought to accept the Amendment to delete Clause 3 (3). Without that Amendment I do not see how they can get a company structure. Subsection (3) says that a man whose resources are so small shall not be excluded from taking part, but the purpose of the company structure is to build up a large unit. The small man whose resources are small has to buy the transport unit, according to the Economic Secretary.
  Mr. Maudling: The point is that the criterion and aim of giving admission to small people to the industry does not affect the company structure. It affects the Commission in deciding whether or not to adopt the company structure in any particular instance.
  Mr. Poole: That may be so, but what the Minister is saying is that I am at perfect liberty to swim the Channel tonight. He knows it is a physical impossibility for me to do so—I might float across, but I could not swim across. He is giving the right to the small man, through the company structure, to tender for shares which he knows the small man cannot buy. I do not understand this affection for the small man. I am astonished that an Economic Secretary should tie himself to this conception of the small unit in transport.
  I do not want to argue the case, which has been argued before and which I have argued many times, that transport is not a field in which small units can be effective. Where is the small unit which can provide trunk road services from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow and to the North of England with terminal facilities and intermediate trans-shipment points? There are already plenty of small men in the industry, as I said yesterday. There are 425,000 operators operating something less than one million vehicles. That is far too many small people, having regard to the economic position of the nation. Whilst we are trying to do all this, the Minister is allowing a large number of C licence vehicles—and I am not going to stray from the Amendment—to run about willy-nilly, most of them being without loads on their return journeys.
  Viscount Hinctaingbrooke: That is repetition.
  Mr. Poole: The noble Lord has just walked into the Chamber and has no right to say that I am being repetitive. I have been in the Chamber and he has not been here to know whether I have been repeating myself or not. I suggest that either he stays in the Chamber and makes his contribution to the debate by getting up on his legs and addressing you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, under the correct Parliamentary procedure, or that he return whence he came and leave us to get on with the business of the House.

  1271
  I ask the Government very seriously to give further consideration to this Amendment which we have moved. I think that they may be unwittingly falling into great difficulties themselves. I do not like this Bill and I do not like the company structure in it; but I believe that if we are to make this Bill work we cannot do so while we leave Clause 3 (3) operating with the new Lords Amendment. I ask the Economic Secretary to look at this matter again, because I cannot see how in the company structure, as set out in the present Lords Amendment, there is any place at all for the small man.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: I want to support the Amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). I cannot understand the attitude of the Economic Secretary and of the Government in respect of large companies in transport. One would imagine from the speeches made from the Government Front Bench that the proper provision for our industrial system was a large number of small, individual operators. It is no good the Economic Secretary saying that the Government believe that the small units run by the small men will give a more efficient service to trade and industry than is provided by the large companies or the Transport Commission. The facts are against such an argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) referred to the trunk services. No one, not even the Minister, really believes that the trunk services throughout the country, which are being run today by the Transport Commission, can be run by small individual owners working in competition one against the other. There are many factors in the transport industry which make it essential that the large company structure should be applied if any alteration is being made at all, rather than place the emphasis upon the small family holding.
  Anyone who has had experience in the transport industry knows that the demands of the Road Traffic Act require that the condition of the vehicle shall be of a very high standard. It requires a big measure of maintenance, and it is not possible for the small individual owner to maintain a fleet of vehicles conditioned and serviced in the way that
  1272
  we are entitled to expect from an efficient service and from the point of view of public safety on the road.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: All repetition.
  Mr. McLeavy: Quite frankly, all experience shows that that is impossible. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deliver my speech. If he wants to speak, he can get on his feet afterwards.
  After the First World War men returning from the Forces bought vehicles and tried to earn a living in road transport in competition with other people. There was cut-throat competition and many of them went to the wall. The position is that if we are not able to maintain a standard of vehicles and a service in a way that was necessary under the Road Traffic Act, then we are going to damage the transport system of the country. If we are going to maintain efficient transport services for industry, it must inevitably be on a fairly large scale where the garages, the repair shops, cleaners and the like can be available to attend to the requirements of these vehicles. Tribute to the Transport Commission has been made by industry itself.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is far from the Amendment at the moment.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McLeavy: While the noble Lord may say "Hear, hear," with every respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are dealing now with the advantage of the small unit as against the large company structure. I am trying to develop an argument on the lines that the company structure is far more preferable, from the point of view of service to industry and safety on the roads, than the small unit owned by an individual.
  I was saying that the position is perfectly clear, that where there is a large fleet of vehicles there is a system of garaging, servicing and spare drivers which cannot be provided by the small man. A very important factor in this business is where illness prevents a driver taking his vehicle out. In a large unit a reserve driver can immediately be put on to drive the vehicle and so avoid disappointment to industry.

  1273
  8.30 p.m.
  I believe the company structure to be an essential factor in the development of our transport industry. Without it we shall be unable to provide that service which the community is entitled to receive. A tribute has been paid to that service by industry and to the well-conditioned fleet of the British Transport Commission. In spite of the suggestions to the contrary, the service given by British transport—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment we are discussing deals with the method of disposal of vehicles and not with the general service.
  Mr. McLeavy: It refers to the manner of disposal, whether it should be by company structure or on the basis of the small unit. I am endeavouring to argue that the Government should accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend because industry demands the efficient service which can be given only by large company holdings.
  One of the astonishing things about the attitude of the Government is that, in the face of the obvious facts of the situation, they are allowing themselves to be led by the Road Haulage Association. No one knows better than the Economic Secretary that we cannot afford wasteful competition and extravagant transport costs. If we are to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has urged industry to do, increase production and reduce costs so that we can compete in foreign markets, we must have an efficient transport system comprising large companies. A policy of small holdings will not solve the economic problems of this nation. Economic development will be retarded and industry will find it more difficult to fulfil its obligations.
  Mr. Callaghan: The Economic Secretary is so amiable that it is difficult to be rough with him. His acute mind, which we have so often admired, must have caused him to realise that he is in great difficulty in trying to refute our Amendment. He saw clearly what was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that he was in an intellectual difficulty. Despite the strictures of the Economic Secretary, I thought that my hon. Friend displayed a grasp of this matter which he obtained very quickly and which filled me with admiration.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member for Oldham, West certainly displayed a grasp, but I am not sure whether it related to this Amendment.
  Mr. Callaghan: I thought he understood the Clause extremely well. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) seized on the very point which is causing discomfiture to the Economic Secretary and which is responsible for his amiability—because if the hon. Gentleman cannot disarm us by argument, he will try to do so by amiability. But we are not to be taken in by either method of persuasion. The truth, as the Economic Secretary knows, is that the Government are asking for two quite contradictory things to be done. The reason they have become contradictory is that the Government initially wished to place all the emphasis on the small road haulier. Only later did they desire to create some form of company structure.
  I point out to the Economic Secretary that the first line of this new Clause—I am paraphrasing—says that where it appears expedient to the Commission to form companies they shall be permitted to do so. When will it be expedient to the Commission, looking at the subject de novo, to form companies? I would venture to give an answer straight away, without having consulted the Commission. They would think it expedient to form companies at almost all their major depots.
  Over the last three or four years they have built up an organisation—we have been over this at great length—capable of functioning as a self-contained unit with great powers of self-direction and self-determination. There is so much local control within these units that if the question of expediency means what would be convenient and what would fetch the best price for the Commission, I would warrant that in the terms of the Clause as it stands the Commission would favour the creation of a very large number of companies indeed for sale as such and only a very small number of individual transport units to be sold in terms of one, two, three or more lorries.
  I do not say that there would not be cases where they would sell transport units of four, five, or six lorries. I imagine that they would do that in some

  1275
  of the small Welsh towns like Welshpool where I visited a unit of five or six lorries. If it were wished to form that unit into a company, it might be much too top-heavy a structure.
  I claim—and I think that common sense and history will be on my side— that generally speaking, if this Clause is to be read by the Commission without regard to anything else in the Bill, they will say, "This is what we favour. We wish to create a large number of companies. In this way we shall preserve the unit of organisation and we shall be able to market this organisation in a proper and sensible way so as to maintain services." So far so good. The Economic Secretary and I are in agreement up to this moment. I base this on our joint interpretation of the Clause so far.
  But here is the nigger in the woodpile. At this moment the Government draftsmen, having written this in response to all the agitation that has been going on, say, "My word; we have to be careful here, Minister, because in fact under the earlier part of this Bill, in Clause 3, we have said that the Commission must have regard to two factors in disposing of these units." They must have regard to the desirability of letting the little men come back into the industry and to the fact that, in order to ensure that it is a little industry, no transport unit shall include more than 50 motor vehicles without the approval of the Minister.
  The draftsmen say, "Well, Minister, we think we must put a saving in here," and as a result we get a completely contradictory Clause which, as drafted, says that where the Commission think that it would best serve their interests and those of the public to form a company they shall do so, provided that they shall not form companies in such circumstances that small men will not have a chance to re-enter the industry and, in any case, the unit shall not have more than 50 vehicles in it.
  Mr. Maudling: I want to make this clear. That is not the effect of the Lords Amendment. The effect is not to apply the limit of 50 vehicles and 200 tons to the company. The words which the Opposition seek to delete refer to the purposes. The companies have not been limited.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is a valuable addition, and I am very glad to have it from the Economic Secretary, because I am certain that his interpretation is right, or he would not have given it to us. It is a great advance to know that, in forming a company, the Commission are not to be limited to 50 vehicles or 200 tons unladen weight without getting the assent of the Minister to go higher. I take it that that is a statement of Government policy, on which we can rely, and that, in fact, the Commission will be able to form companies with more than 50 vehicles in number and with more than an aggregate weight of 200 tons unladen without the consent of the Minister. It is very important, and I take it that there is no dissent from that, and that it is the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] Well, at the moment, I am not getting much response, but it is important that we should be completely clear about this.
  Mr. Maudling: I have just refreshed my memory, and higher authority confirms it.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am very much obliged, and we can leave that point straight away on the understanding that a company formed by the Commission may have more than 50 vehicles and more than 200 tons unladen weight without the consent of the Minister.
  But how on earth are they to stick to the second condition in subsection (3) if they must have regard to the fact that transport units shall not exceed 50 motor vehicles when they are making up their minds whether or not to form a company? It is really incomprehensible. I do try to understand what the Minister is saying, but I am bound to say that in this particular matter I am not clear how the Commission are supposed to reconcile what in my view is the completely contradictory advice and instructions given to them—first, that they should be able to form a company where they think it is expedient, and that, in forming that company, they may have regard to the reentry of small men into the business and secondly, that such transport units when taken over shall not exceed 50 vehicles.
  This is where the Government are not speaking with one voice, because in the House of Lords Viscount Swinton certainly said that the formation of a company would be an exceptional case. On

  1277
  the other hand, the Earl of Selkirk, speaking four or five columns later in the OFFICIAL REPORT, when challenged on this point, and when asked what exceptional circumstances would arise, said:
  "The circumstances are these. People will want to buy"—
  Here he was interrupted by another noble Lord, who said: "Exceptional circumstances." The Earl of Selkirk went on to say:
  "We think the circumstances will depend on the opinion which the Board form as to the way in which a particular formation can usefully be sold. That is all in the Bill, and I cannot add to it."
  I do not think the noble Lord was right about the Board; I think it is the Commission, subject to the Board certainly The noble Lord went on:
  "When we have passed this Bill, substantial power will pass to the Disposal Board and to the Commission to conduct their affairs as the Bill directs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1199–1200.]
  I feel sorry for him. Here is the point. As the Earl of Selkirk said, there is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances. I do not know what that was intended to convey, but the noble Lord was challenged on the subject and said that exceptional circumstances meant the provision for the formation of a company. One possible interpretation of the last sentence of the Earl of Selkirk's statement that there is no statement in the Bill about exceptional circumstances is that he was attempting to reassure the noble Lord who was challenging him by assuring him that the circumstances would not necessarily be exceptional.
  It is a great disappointment to us to know that the Government are still
  adhering to the conception that the formation of a company shall go forward only in exceptional circumstances. It seems to us very desirable that the Commission should be completely free to form these companies where they think the public interest will be best served, and in the public interest I include the price they will get for a unit.
  I have little doubt that a better price will be got by the sale of the shares of the company than will be got by the sale of a transport unit, and if the Minister insists, as apparently the Government are insisting, that the formation of companies will be only exceptional and that the sale of transport units will be the normal method of disposing of vehicles, then I say to the Minister that, by that decision, he is automatically increasing the loss that the Commission are to suffer in the sale of these vehicles, that he is automatically increasing the amount of the levy that will have to be paid by private traders in order to recoup the Commission for that loss and that he will therefore automatically be extending the period of the levy.
  8.45 p.m.
  All of this was objectionable to his supporters, and it was in response to their objections that the Minister originally introduced this particular Lords Amendment, the whole of which we are now discussing. For those reasons, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to be content with the explanations that we have heard, and I trust that they will divide the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 273.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [8.45 p.m

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Birch, Nigel

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

  Bishop, F. P.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Arbuthnot, John

  Black, C. W.

  Carr, Robert

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Channon, H.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Braine, B. R.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Cole, Norman

  Barber, Anthony

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bromley-Davenport, Ll.-Col. W. H.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Crosthwaite-Eyra, Col. O. E.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Crouch, R. F.

  Jennings, R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Kaberry, D.

  Redmayne, H.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Donner, P. W.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Russell, R. S.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Erroll, F. J.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Fell, A.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longden, Gilbert

  Shepherd, William

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Fort, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Foster, John

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McCallum, Major D.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Speir, R. M.

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Stevens, G. P.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Godber, J. B.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Storey, S.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Summers, G. S.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Grimond, J.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Maudling, R.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Tilney, John

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Turton, R. H.

  Hay, John

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Heath, Edward

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nutting, Anthony

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Odey, G. W.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Holt, A. F.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Wellwood, W.

  Hope, Lord John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon. E.)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Williams. R Dudley (Exeter)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Osborne, C.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Partridge, E.

  Wood, Hon. R

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  York, C.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  1280

  1281

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Nally, W.

  Albu, A. H.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hale, Leslie

  O'Brien, T.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Oliver, G. H

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hannan, W.

  Orbach, M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hargreaves, A.

  Oswald, T.

  Baird, J.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Balfour, A.

  Hastings, S.

  Paget, R. T.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Bartley, P.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Bence, C. R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pannell, Charles

  Benson, G.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Beswick, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Parker, J.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Holman, P.

  Paton, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Pearson, A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Peart, T. F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Boardman, H.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Poole, C. C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Popplewell, E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Porter, G.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Rankin, John

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Reeves, J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Janner, B.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rhodes, H.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Richards, R.

  Carmichael, J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Champion, A. J.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Clunie, J.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Ross, William

  Collick, P. H.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Royle, C.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Keenan, W.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Kinley, J.

  Short, E. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davits, Harold (Leek)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Deer, G.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Snow, J. W.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McGovern, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  McInnes, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Driberg, T. E. N

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  McLeavy, F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.

  Edelman, M.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stress, Dr. Barnett

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Finch, H. J.

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Follick, M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Foot, M. M.

  Messer, F.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Monslow, W.

  Thornton, E.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Moody, A. S.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Timmons, J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morley, R.

  Tomney, F.

  Glanville, James

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lyne

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Moyle, A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mulley, F. W

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Murray, J. D

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  1282

  1283

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C)

  West, D. G.

  Willey, F. T.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Wheatlay, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wheelden, W. E.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Yates, V. F.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Wigg, George

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S).

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. J. Taylor.

  Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment that has been selected is in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso. The House will be aware that that is the proviso in the proposed new Clause, and it occurred to me that as this raises the powers, functions and constitution of the Board, it might be convenient to the House if, on this Amendment, a general discussion took place upon the new board, embodying some of the later Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with the details of these functions. I think the House might find itself less trammelled in the discussion.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, might I ask you a question or two about that? There is no new board in the proposed company structure. There is in this Clause a new company structure, but the board which will have authority over companies, just as it already has in the Bill as drawn over transport units, is the same Disposal Board in both cases. The composition, powers and everything to do with the board have been, I readily agree, exhaustively examined already for many days in both Houses.
  Mr. D. Jones: Mr. Speaker, before you give us the advantage of your view upon that point, may I make this observation to you? The proposed new Clause, covering four pages, extends the powers of the Board substantially to do a large number of things which were not even mentioned in the Bill when it left this House. Therefore, I submit to you that the powers now proposed to be given to the Board are substantially greater than they were when the Bill left this House.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that only in one particular have the powers of the Board been extended in this field of company structure further than in the field of transport units. That one extension is important, I agree. It deals with whether there should or should not be the company structure in particular cases.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you could indicate which Amendments you were proposing to call in connection with the Board. If you did so it might help us to decide how far the discussion should go.
  Mr. Speaker: What I had in mind were the functions of the Board in relation to companies. It seems to me that the Amendment in subsection (3), to leave out "with the approval of the Board," is relevant. The Amendment in subsection (5), to leave out "or refused'": the Amendment to subsection (5), to leave out from "accepted," to "unless"; and the Amendment to subsection (5), to leave out "they," and insert "the Commission," all seem to cover the same ground. The Amendment to subsection (11), to leave out "with the approval of the Board," also seems to come into the same category.
  I am in the hands of the House in this matter. I am merely making this suggestion for the convenience of the House. If the discussion on the first Amendment which I am about to call will cover these other Amendments it might facilitate the debate to include them.
  Mr. Davies: That is quite agreeable to us, Sir. In effect, it means that the powers of the Board to permit the Commission to take certain actions will be the subject for discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: The subject will be the powers of the Board in so far as they are affected by these Amendments.
  Mr. Mellish: Are all these Amendments to be taken and voted on separately?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not necessary. One discussion would cover the lot.
  Mr. Callaghan: I suggest that we should see how the discussion goes. It is clear that there are many different points in relation to which the Board will have power of one sort or another. At the

  1285
  end of the debate it might be felt that we should test the feeling of the House on the disposal of the shares, whereas we might not want to do so in regard to other matters.
  Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but we should not repeat the discussion. We should have a general discussion.
  Mr. D. Jones: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out:
  Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid.
  The effect of this Amendment will be to delete the proviso which has been inserted as a second paragraph to subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause. That new Clause seeks to establish a company structure and it is rather interesting to notice what power is given to the Commission. The Clause says:
  "If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section.…"
  In the first place, the Clause lays down specific directions and instructions as to the manner in which the Commission shall proceed; what safeguards they shall insert; what examinations they shall undertake and, having made all those inquiries and investigations and having fully satisfied thomselves that it is expedient that they should proceed to dispose of the shares in these company undertakings which they are to establish, the way would then be open for them to proceed with the task of establishing the companies and dealing with the shares of those companies.
  For some reason which is not yet clear to me—nor do I think it is clear to a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends or to a large section of the business community—there is a proviso:
  "Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient …"
  Why should it be necessary for a body like the British Transport Commission first
  1286
  of all to have to undertake all the safeguards laid down in the Clause and then, having satisfied themselves that the conditions are satisfactory and reasonable, to submit the matter to the Board? The Board have to consider whether it is expedient or otherwise. They have to discover that it is expedient and—the last sentence of this proviso is interesting—
  "will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid."
  Why this great concern about the Road Haulage Disposal Board I am not quite sure. It is not without interest, in view of the tremendous powers which the Board are given in this Clause, and it is not unreasonable to examine who is to comprise this Board.
  The chairman and deputy chairman are to be chosen by the Minister and they have to possess no qualifications whatsoever, apparently, except that they have to satisfy the Minister. Of the remaining members of the Board,
  "one member shall be appointed from among persons nominated by the Commission; one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade and industry as the Minister thinks fit; one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences as the Minister thinks fit; and one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding C licences as the Minister thinks fit."
  The only qualifications which the remaining four members of the Board are to have, excepting that they need the approval of the Minister of Transport, are these: one has to be a member of the Commission, one has to be representative of trade and industry, one has to be representative of people holding A or B licences and one has to be representative of people holding C licences.
  I submit that this is not the kind of Board which ought to be charged with the responsibility of snooping on the British Transport Commission to satisfy itself that they are behaving and acting in the public interest. I submit that the Commission, tried as they have been, experienced as they are, would be much more likely to have regard to the public well being than is a Board of this kind, most of the members holding vested interests in the undertaking which they are going to examine. Let us see precisely what is likely to happen. "Modern Transport" for 17th April had this to say:

  1287
  "Road Haulage Association member of Disposal Board. Nominations to be submitted to the Minister. Two of the four national vice-chairmen"—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member, in dealing with this Amendment, to traverse matters which are entirely covered by Clause 2, and which are in no way involved either in the new Clause under consideration or in the Amendment?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand the argument, it is that this proviso should be omitted because the Board, constituted as the hon. Member says it is, is not a fit body to supervise the Commission.
  Mr. Powell: Further to that, is it in order to go in detail into the question of the composition of the Board?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To go in detail into the composition of the Board would not be in order, but to make the point that the Board is not a suitable body to supervise the Commission is, I think, in order.
  Mr. Jones: I am endeavouring to prove that by the very nature of its composition, and because of the people who are to comprise this Board, having regard to the public interest in this matter, the Board are not a fit and proper body to which the Transport Commission must submit their proposals after they themselves have examined them in the light of the public interest. I submit that the Board are not competent to do this because they have a vested interest in this particular business before they undertake the task
  Already, before the Bill becomes law, the Road Haulage Association, who seem to have made a very great number of comments about this Bill since the White Paper was issued a long time ago, are busy, and I submit that the facts contained in this document completely rule out the fitness of a board comprised of these people to make this examination. Two of the four national vice-chairmen of the Road Haulage Association have been nominated by the Association for the hauliers' seat on the Disposal Board; not to sit in the public interest, but in the hauliers' seat; thus telling us in advance that the interest to which they will have regard will be the hauliers' interest, and even if it conflicts with the public interest
  1288
  and the consumers' interest I presume that they will still have the hauliers' interest in mind.
  "All members of the Board."
  says this paragraph,
  "are to be appointed by the Minister. All the four appointments to be made by the chairman and deputy-chairman have been decided upon. One member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences as the Minister thinks fit, according to the Transport Bill Thus, while the Minister is not bound to appoint any person nominated by the Road Haulage Association, there is every reason to expect that he will do so."
  Is this another case of prior consultation? I wonder.
  Mr. Ross: Lorries for the lads.
  Mr. Jones: It will only remain to choose between Mr. Farmer and Mr. Barry, two vice-chairmen of this Association.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It seems to me that the hon. Member is now going in detail into the constitution of the Board. If he is arguing that the Board generally is so constituted it should not be placed in a supervisory position in relation to the Commission, that is in order, but to argue in detail the composition of the Board is not.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Jones: I am seeking to prove that by the very nature of the qualifications that they must have they are not competent to do this job.
  In Clause 2, which deals with the setting up of the Disposal Board, there is provision in subsection (8) for the steps that are to be taken should the Board arrive at a deadlock when making their decision. When the Transport Commission start to create this company structure, they will submit the matter to the Disposal Board, but having regard to the composition of the Board there may be disagreement between the members. In view of the importance of this company structure to the road haulage industry, to the people concerned and to the House, it is vital to examine precisely what happens in the event of a disagreement between the members of the Board.
  If there be a disagreement somebody has to resolve it, because, as I understand the new Clause, there is no appeal by the Commission against a decision of the Disposal Board if it declines to

  1289
  approve of a proposal made by the Commission. On the other hand, according to Clause 2, if there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Board on any question—which, I presume, includes the question of the company structure—
  "and the chairman, or, in the absence of the chairman, the deputy-chairman, considers that the matter is of sufficient importance to require to be referred to the Minister, he may refer the matter to the Minister, and where the matter is so referred to the Minister the Minister may, if he thinks fit, give directions to the Board as to the course to be followed, and the Board shall comply with any such directions."
  I submit that if the procedure outlined in this new Clause is followed, there has only to be disagreement amongst the members of the Disposal Board and the right hon. Gentleman, who holds the political appointment, will again be called upon to exercise those economic functions about which he talked in the early hours of this morning, which apparently a Tory Minister is so capable of discharging. In my judgment, that is another example of a political decision being made over a matter which is purely economic.
  One begins to wonder why, running through this Bill, including this new Clause, the Bill is given such an honoured place in the disposal of these very valuable road haulage assets. I think it is because, as the Minister of Transport has indicated, as has his Parliamentary Secretary in recent days, he has no faith in the Transport Commission. When the party opposite was in Opposition we used to hear a lot of talk about snoopers, but I know of no other legislation passed since I have been a Member which has officially recognised snoopers on behalf of the Minister.
  I am sorry that the Minister of Works has left the Chamber, because in indicating the views of some Members of Her Majesty's Government about the Transport Commission, he thought out loud at Middlesbrough on 17th May of last year. He was good enough to tell us in a speech in the Town Hall, Middlesbrough, that he strongly criticised the suggestion that the Government should consult the Transport Commission before denationalising road haulage. He said:
  "We are not likely to get any good advice from them, because they were appointed by our enemies."
  1290
  It rather looked as though the Minister of Works was echoing aloud what a number of other Ministers of the Crown are thinking.
  Let me turn now to the Parliamentary Secretary, who was good enough to give the Traders' Road Transport Association of the East Midland Division, at Nottingham, I believe, a week or 10 days ago, the benefit of his views about some of the bodies he is not taking part in trying to break up. He said, first of all, that nationalisation would never work because no one had reached the standard of perfection where he spent other people's money more carefully than his own. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now dealing with the general issue of nationalisation, and not with the relationship of the Commission and the Board.
  Mr. Jones: I am trying to prove by quoting words of Her Majesty's Ministers in speeches in the country that they have, from time to time, indicated in public utterances their complete disregard and suspicion for the bodies which they are now seeking to break up.
  The Bill places the final responsibility upon the Minister of Transport. It is not without interest to know what his views are about the Transport Commission. We know what his views are going to be about the Disposal Board because he has taken jolly good care that he is going to be responsible for appointing all the members.
  The Parliamentary Secretary had something to say about the Road Haulage Executive, the body which this Bill seeks to break up and do away with. He criticised the Road Haulage Executive and said that they were dissipating the goodwill built up by private enterprise. He said that there was a monopoly of 41,000 vehicles with 12,000 officials to control them and empty running to the tune of something like 40 per cent. He is either a knave or a fool, because he had only to consult the Transport Commission's Report for 1951 and the facts would be quite clear to him.
  He might have thought that he could get away with the charge which the

  1291
  Prime Minister made, but every technical journal published in this country has given the answer to the 12,000 and the greater costs of operation. Therefore, I am suggesting that it is not by accident that the Disposal Board is set up in the way that it is, that it comprises representatives of the interests which it does, that it is to be finally appointed by the Minister, that it has only to fall out among itself and the Minister can step in and make decisions for it.
  It is for all these reasons, I think, that the Commission, after they have taken all the steps laid down to satisfy themselves that the establishment of this company structure is in accordance with the public interest, they have to submit their work to the Disposal Board in order that they may decide whether or not the proposal is expedient. The Minister is making a political decision on a matter which is purely economic.
  Mr. Hargreaves: The purpose of the Amendment is to remove from the proposed new Clause relating to the transfer of property to companies with a view to selling shares, that authority which sets the Disposal Board over the Commission and to give that authority to the Transport Commission rather than to the Board. I was interested in the discussion on an earlier Amendment to this new Clause when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that the initiative in these matters rested with the Commission. I have followed carefully speeches of my hon. Friends and examined the Clause and the Bill very carefully and I think that the use of the word "initiative" in respect of these matters is rather straining its meaning.
  I believe that the imposition of the Board takes away all possibility of initiative in connection with the setting up of companies by the Transport Commission. Anyone who examines the new Clause will recognise that the Commission have little power in connection with the initiation of the proposed companies. The Board referred to in the subsection we seek to remove authorise the creation of the company. They control the sale of shares by tender or agreement, they control the price, they determine the purposes the operation of rights and privileges. That is done by the Board and not by the Commission, yet the
  1292
  Economic Secretary referred earlier to the initiative of the Commission in connection with this Clause. The Board decide in the first place whether the setting up of such companies is expedient and also whether or not it will prejudice the purposes to which the Commission must have regard.
  My complaint in connection with the subsection which the Amendment seeks to remove is that it places the whole of the responsibility in connection with this Clause upon a Board which is to be appointed by the Minister. It is not unimportant that the arrangements entered into with a finance house in connection with the disposal of these matters of which complaint was made earlier were entered into, according to the spokesman of the Government in another place, not between that first company and the hauliers, but between that first company and the Road Haulage Association. Viscount Swinton was responsible for that in the Lords.
  The Minister, when making what I might call his haulage representative appointments, ought to take the opportunity in my view to see that people, who are not already committed in the way that is suggested in the statement made by Lord Swinton in another place are appointed. They should not be appointed to this Board without careful consideration.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now entering into a discussion on the composition of the Board.
  Mr. Hargreaves: With very great respect, I am suggesting that if one is entering into the duties of the Board which are laid down in the Lords Amendment, one must also have regard to the duties and fitness of the Commission.
  I should like to deal with the duties and the fitness of the Board set up under the Lords Amendment. I do not think that my reference to the membership of the Board and the appointments by the Minister conflicts with the arguments I have attempted to put before the House. I suggest that the point to which I called the attention of the House is not unimportant in the Minister's assessments of the duties on both sides. We must recognise that the House has come to a certain political decision which is now

  1293
  embodied in the Bill. The decision is that the road haulage undertakings shall be disposed of, and the Bill sets out the methods whereby that shall be done. Those purposes are binding upon the Commission, and it seems to me that, the central political decision having passed through Parliament, the work must be carried out in the ways laid down in the Bill. We must recognise that the Commission will carry out the major effect of this Measure in the way embodied in the Lords Amendment and by the Board which we are referring to in this Amendment. While accepting that the Board may have functions to perform in connection with other aspects of the Bill, I believe that in the setting up of the company structure under this Lords Amendment, there is room for recognising that the Commission itself must have the best knowledge as to whether the company structure is the most effective way to carry out the purpose of the Bill.
  Recognising the central purpose and effect of the Bill, it would follow that the Commission is the best means by which the company structure can be used, for we must have regard to the work upon which the Commission is engaged at present and which will continue during the period of sale. We must recognise that there are physical parts of the undertaking which will be taken from the Commission during the sale, and it would seem logical that people in control of the undertaking at that time are in the best position to determine the best way to perform those functions.
  Supervision by the Disposal Board at every stage will tend to hamper the work of the Commission. The two bodies would appear to be at enmity with each other. The function of the Board is to dispose of the assets by one means or another. It is the responsibility of the Commission to carry out the purpose of the Bill and. at the same time, perform its function of meeting the transport needs of industry.
  Having laid down the work of the Commission in the Bill, and provided a system of safeguards, I believe that we may leave it to carry out that work.
  Mr. Popplewell: I ask the House to accept the Opposition Amendment. Unless the idea behind the Lords Amendment is rejected, a grave situation will arise. The main substance of this
  1294
  provision is designed to give power to the Board over the Commission. To do that we must consider the weighting of the Board and its constitution with its representatives of the competitors of the Commission. We see representatives of big business appointed and, when we realise who are the likely nominees of the Minister, most of us are filled with grave concern.
  There will be only one representative from the Commission which is the undertaking whose commodities are to be sold as companies. Although the Commission's assets are involved, the Board will have complete power. There will be only one representative of the Commission among the six members of the Board. This is not a question of representatives being appointed from the various sides of industry and taking up full-time jobs. So far as we can gather, membership of the Board will be on a part-time basis. That is another cause for suspicion. The members will follow their normal vocations and continue to act as distributors of the assets of the Commission.
  The House should look carefully at this matter. One does not want to refer too much to events which took place in the House earlier today, but one cannot help remembering the close association between the Minister and the United Dominions Trust. If we consider that Trust acting as snoopers within the industry and then we realise the type of appointments likely to be made to the Board, we feel considerably alarmed that these valuable national assets are being handed over to a particularly peculiar body for disposal.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I know that my hon. Friend does not want to be unfair, and I am sure that he would agree that the Government have not completed the racket by putting the United Dominions Trust representative on the Board equally with the Road Haulage Association.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Popplewell: But there is a trend in that direction. Who can say that it will not be so? Who can say who will be appointed as trade and industry representative? We must look most suspiciously at the structure of the Board. What qualifications do the Board possess to assess the value of units to be

  1295
  disposed of as company assets? The Commission may decide what they think fit, but they cannot say what will be the particular assets that will be disposed of unless the Board agree. The Board will have complete power over the owner of the asset, and will be able to tell him how to dispose of his goods.
  I suggest that this is a very serious matter indeed, because there are no technical qualifications in the membership of the Board. The only qualifications necessary are some knowledge of industry or some knowledge of operating A, B or C licences—the actual competitors of the Board. Would any business agree to such a set-up? If a business were in difficulties, would the people concerned call on the representatives of their competitors to sell their assets, or upon their purchasers to decide the value of those assets? There is no question of technical qualifications in deciding what is a useful administrative transport unit to build up into a company. There is no guiding light laid down to the Board to ensure that they get the best possible prices.
  We attempted yesterday to secure the acceptance of an Amendment to provide that, when transport units were being sold as a public asset to private enterprise, there should be some safeguard in regard to the value of the asset, in the same way as, when assets were taken from private enterprise, they were taken over on a reasonable basis which was established and laid down in the Act. We feel that that arrangement is particularly appropriate in regard to transport units. We also feel that, since the Board are constituted as they are, in the disposal of these assets they should not be built up for handing over at knock-down prices, but that some technical guidance should be given in assessing the value of a company and its share value on the market.
  It is most important that the owner of an undertaking should be able to decide on the extent of the loan which he wishes to raise if he is to try to establish a company, but under this set-up the owner of the undertaking will not have that power. His competitors, and in all probability the friends of the people who will buy the company, will be the people who will decide the value of the shares to be floated. Surely, we have to go a long way
  1296
  back in Parliamentary history before we come across such a sell-out.
  We have in mind the association of the Minister with big business. We cannot overlook it. We remember the constant taunts made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were on these benches, against the men appointed to the national undertakings, calling them "Quislings." Now they are in power one wonders how far they will go in appointments to the Board, for disposing of their assets.
  I do not suppose I shall get the Minister to agree to accept our Amendment. I would therefore ask the House to remember the Parliamentary Secretary's recent speech. Although he represents the British Transport Commission in this House, he makes speeches, as he did at Nottingham, that are totally devoid of the truth in regard to the Department which he represents, and one cannot help feeling a great amount of suspicion when appointments such as these are left in the hands of such people.
  Mr. Manuel: What did he say?
  Mr. Popplewell: It has been repeated many times. For all the reasons I have given, and in order to get a square deal for the Commission in the disposal of their assets by letting them be the deciding body in regard to the value to be placed upon the assets—it should not be the value placed upon them by the Commission's competitors—I ask the House to support the Amendment which has been so admirably moved by my two colleagues.
  Mr. Maudling: There seems to be a certain amount of divided counsel on this matter on the Opposition benches. We are primarily considering the question whether the Commission shall be subject to the approval of the Board in deciding whether or not to adopt the company structure method of disposal.
  I gather from Mr. Speaker's Ruling that it is suggested that we might take into account the really relevant points in the Lords Amendments in which reference is made to the approval of the Board. These are: that no invitation to tender for the disposal of shares should be issued without the approval of the Board; that the disposal of shares otherwise than by tender should be subject to the approval of the Board; and that no tender or offer for the shares shall be

  1297
  accepted or refused without the approval of the Board. The question raised in the Opposition Amendment is whether it is right that the Commission, in exercising the option to the extent given to them under the Lords Amendment, should be subject to this amount of control by the Disposal Board.
  There has been a good deal of discussion on rather wider points, particularly in the wide-ranging and effective speeches of my hon. Friends, and on the general question of the Disposal Board, which is, of course, already embodied in the Bill as passed by this House and endowed with very definite and extensive functions. I do not want to rehearse— and I am sure it would be out of order if I tried—the arguments about the need for the Disposal Board and the nature of its composition.
  Broadly speaking, the argument is that as we are asking the Commission to do a difficult task in disposing of their undertakings, when they themselves consider that it is not right and is a policy with which they disagree, and as we know that they will loyally carry out the policy laid down by Parliament, there is a lot to be said for having a Disposal Board of this kind, in the interests of all concerned, to supervise the carrying out of these obligations.
  I come to the composition of the Board, of which we have heard a good deal. There is not very much point in going into the question in any detail. The attitude adopted today by hon. Members depends upon the attitude they adopt towards the good faith of the Minister
  Mr. Mitchison: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's doubts about the Commission arise from the feeling that the Commission do not agree—and we know that they do not agree—with the Government's policy. How is the hon. Gentleman to assure himself that the Disposal Board will not disagree with the Government's policy? Is that the reason the Board are composed in the remarkable way in which they are and why there are so many representatives of the prospective buyers on the Board?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I should be drawn aside by the hon. and learned Member into arguments which
  1298
  are related to the original decision to establish the Disposal Board, a decision put in the Bill as approved by the House together with definite functions. In Clause 3 of the Bill the Disposal Board are given some very definite powers in connection with the sale of transport units. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that
  "… no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board:…"
  That is just an example, and there are others of them. The fact that in the case of disposal of transport units the Board should exercise these definite and far-ranging powers amounts to a general supervision of the disposal of transport units.
  What we are now considering is the proposal in the Lords Amendment that in arranging an option, an alternative method of disposal through company structure rather than through transport units, the Disposal Board shall be given broadly the same powers in respect of company structure as they are given in respect of disposals of transport units. There is one exception, to which I will come in a moment. The Board are given powers to approve or refuse offers to tender, and so on, pari passu with the Board's original functions and the powers conferred by this House to dispose of transport units.
  Having established in the Bill that we have approved a Disposal Board, and having given that Board far-ranging powers in the general process of disposal of transport unis, it would be completely illogical not to give the Board the same powers in relation to the alternative method of disposal by company structure. There is one point on which I agree that there is an extension beyond the general type of power given in the case of disposal by transport units. That is in the passage which we are considering in relation to the first Amendment to the Lords Amendment. It is that the Commission shall not exercise their option to dispose through company structure rather than through transport units without the approval of the Board.
  I submit that this is only a logical extension of the whole process. One of the most important features of this process of disposal, as hon. Members have

  1299
  argued, is that the Board should supervise the general procedure. If the Board are going to supervise the general procedure of disposal, then they should be given powers to supervise what is an inherent and important element in that process of disposal—
  Mr. Mitchison: Why is this collection of lorry owners considered competent to advise on questions of company policy and company formation and the like? Why, if the Government have their way, is the small man going to be present on this Disposal Board? Why is it considered that he knows whether disposal should be by company formation in a particular case?
  Mr. Maudling: I know that the hon. and learned Member does not approve of the Disposal Board in any case and that he will argue that they should not be given powers over the disposal of transport units. That is not the point of view that was accepted by the House when they approved the Bill originally To omit this power and other powers provided by the Lords Amendment would be utterly illogical in the light of the composition of the Board and the powers given to it by the Bill as already approved by this House.
  10.0 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: The Economic Secretary has, as he has always done, given us a very thoughtful and courteous reply. I am bound to say, however, that he did not seem to me to begin to answer the many objections that were advanced by my hon. Friends who spoke before he did.
  May I put this position to him? My hon. Friends, obviously, do not like the Disposal Board. They do not trust it. They think that its composition will make it unreliable for the purpose for which it is devised, and they wish it were not in the Bill at all. What the Economic Secretary said in answer to that was this, "I recognise that the Commission has an extremely difficult task. It is a task which is made more difficult by reason of the fact that the Commission do not like the Government's policy and think it all wrong. Recognising, as I do, that the task is extremely difficult and utterly distasteful to the Commission, I propose to make it still more difficult and distasteful by hampering every single activity of
  1300
  the Commission by the potential veto of the Board"—which hon. Members on this side of the House thoroughly distrust. That is the argument.
  Mr. Maudling: My argument was that the potential veto to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers has already been accepted by this House over a wide proportion of the process of disposal.
  Sir F. Soskice: Accepted by a majority of this House representing a minority of the electorate in relation to other parts of the Bill—not those parts which deal with company structure.
  We were told by the Minister when he spoke on the Report stage that the Commission had most strongly urged that the limited application of the company principle would not only facilitate disposal but would much help them in dealing with their highly complicated internal problems. That, I suppose, is a polite and euphemistic way of describing highly difficult and distasteful problems. They had, therefore, I suppose, in an attempt to escape from the shackles with which they were fettered, asked that there should be some company structure. That idea had emanated from other sources as well. The hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) suggested something of the sort.
  We also put down for the Committee stage of the Bill—although, unfortunately, it was not selected—a similar proposal. We proposed that in order that these units of transport should not be, as it were, thrown away, in order that there should be some guarantee to the public that in the absence of a reserve price, at any rate, the loss should not be disproportionately great, it should be possible for the Commission, by using a company structure and passing the units to companies and then gradually selling off the shares of the companies as and when it seemed appropriate so to do and as and when the shares in small or large parcels could be advantageously disposed of, to carry out their distasteful task.
  That is what we proposed, and we did so to give some elbow room to the Commission, to give some guarantee to the public that instead of being forced by a kind of rigid injunction to load these transport units on to the public, they should have some real discretion, some real elbow room to give themselves time to try to get a good price and to sell on

  1301
  really advantageous terms. That is what we proposed and we are very glad to see that the Government have been able to accept, to some extent, that company structure.
  When one looks a bit further on the Order Paper one finds that the shares have to be sold in one single unit. One of the main advantages of the proposition that we advanced was that there would be some elasticity in the disposal, in that the shares could be gradually parcelled out. That, of course, goes altogether when one has this rigid system which requires all the shares to be dumped in one single sale. The degree to which the Commission are facilitated by the Government's acceptance of the company structure is very limited.
  I now return to what my hon. Friends, one after the other, have advanced as the main reason for the Amendment which we are now discussing. Difficult as this companies structure makes the task which the Commission has reluctantly to perform, the Government have, in addition, put upon their neck this Disposal Board. There would have been much more justification for so doing if it were the function of the Board to guide and not to inhibit, and if the Board were—as it appeared in the course of the debate it was not—so constituted as to command some slight degree of confidence on this side of the House.
  Neither of those conditions has been fulfilled. One after another, my hon. Friends—not only in the course of the discussion of this Amendment but over and over again in the debates on this Bill —have voiced their very deep anxieties about the probable composition, of the Board and the way in which its members may be tempted to act. My hon. Friends are acutely anxious and concerned about that matter. The Minister and the Economic Secretary are forcing upon the Commission a Board which is highly suspect from its very beginnings.
  This is a Board in this particular part of the Bill which is not simply entrusted with the duty of guiding, helping and facilitating the Commission; it is enabled to put an absolute block on anything which the Commission may wish to do. The Economic Secretary not only admits that, but goes out of his way to point out that—for some reason which he did not indicate and which we find it extremely
  1302
  difficult to discern—with a company structure the powers of the Board are more extensive than they are if lorries are disposed of in the form of road units.
  The Economic Secretary referred to Clause 3 (7), which contains the major powers of the Board in relation to the disposal of lorries in the form of road units, and it has been pointed out that the powers given to the Board are far more extensive when we look at the proviso which we are now seeking to remove. They are capable of stifling the Commission altogether. The Commission are trussed up like a dead chicken. They really cannot act if they have this Disposal Board sitting on their neck.
  Mr. Maudling: My point was that the more extended power of the Disposal Board arises from the fact that a choice is to be created, and they are given the power of supervision over that choice. That situation could not have existed before.
  Sir F. Soskice: That may be the Economic Secretary's point, but the fact remains that if the Commission choose to resort to this method of company disposal in an endeavour to avail themselves of some slight extra facilities, they find themselves, as the Economic Secretary pointed out, inhibited and checked in almost every activity upon which they may want to embark by the powers of the Board which are conferred by the proviso which we are trying to remove.
  Although I always have the greatest respect for the contributions of the Economic Secretary, on this occasion he did not do himself justice or live up to the very high standard which we expect from him. We have always been used to elucidation and help from him. I hope that he and the Minister will give further thought to the arguments which have been advanced. They proceed from an acute anxiety as to the impartiality of the Board which is likely to be set up pursuant to the powers contained in this Bill.
  My hon. Friends do not trust the Board and they do not like to see them furnished with these very drastic powers to control and check the activities of the Commission. I ask the Economic Secretary whether he really thinks it fair, speaking as a Minister, wholly to disregard and ride roughshod over the apprehensions

  1303
  which, one after another, my hon. Friends have expressed. Does he think it is fair, knowing that those apprehensions exist and are universally felt on this side of the House, to let this Bill go forward with the Board entrusted with these extremely drastic powers? I put it to him that, as a matter of fairness, it is not. I hope that he and the Minister will give further consideration to our arguments.
  May I make it quite clear that we welcome the extension in the Commission's powers which are contained in the embodiment in the Bill of the company structure. That is undoubtedly important. But we should like to see a company structure made far more elastic, in particular by an Amendment which we have later on the Order Paper, and which we hope will be selected, to leave out the requirement that the shares are to be sold in one parcel. If that is selected we shall have an opportunity of voicing our difficulties upon it, but in the meantime I earnestly ask the Economic Secretary to think again on the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends and see whether he can leave out the proviso, which is simply one of a series of provisions in the Lords Amendment which my hon. Friends cordially dislike.
  My hon. Friends would like to see the Commission enabled to act in the public interest, uninhibited by this Board and I profoundly hope that, when it as pointed out to the Economic Secretary how deeply my hon. Friends feel their anxieties, he will think again and agree that the proviso should be omitted.
  Mr. George Brown: I am prompted to take part in the discussion wholly by the speech of the Economic Secretary. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), I feel that normally one has a regard for the Economic Secretary and his contributions somewhat higher than one has for many of the other occupants of the Treasury Bench, but I cannot help saying that tonight not only did he not do himself justice but he treated the House with an element of disdain which I can only suspect came from the fact that the Government forced him to sit up all last night and that he is now beginning slightly to lose his grip.
  1304
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked him what I thought was a wholly proper and pertinent question. He asked why the hon. Member thought that a Board composed in this way, with the particular interests which are to be represented on it, should be regarded as competent to decide whether, in the words of the Lords Amendment, it "is expedient" and "will not prejudice" the other considerations for the company structure method of disposal to be adopted. It is no answer to that question to say, "I know you do not like the Disposal Board anyway. I know you do not trust it. There it is; you do not and we do, and it is a matter of opinion."
  I am not for the moment expressing any view about the competence, the trustworthiness and the desirability of the Disposal Board when the transport unit system of disposal is adopted. That is in the Bill. But now we are putting into the Bill an altogether different proposition. We are saying that the Transport Commission shall have the power to decide, if it appears to them to be expedient, to dispose of their property by a company structure method, and if they are satisfied that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which they have to have regard in subsection (3), they may then proceed to dispose of it in this way.
  It seems to me perfectly proper to put that responsibility on to the Commission. It then leaves for subsequent discussion within the Amendment all considerations which would have to be taken into account in inviting tenders for the shares. It may be that the Economic Secretary could put an argument for the Disposal Board in subsequent instances. I do not know, but for the moment he was addressing himself to this particular proviso. I can see no reason at all for thinking that a Board constituted in the way this one is to be constituted, with representatives of the A, B and C licence holders, and representatives of trade and industry, should be the party to veto this particular decision.
  10.15 p.m.
  I would observe, by the way, that nothing could be clumsier than this drafting of a Parliamentary Bill. We have a long Clause setting out that a certain

  1305
  body is responsible, and setting out the considerations on which they are to exercise responsibility, and then the heart of the same Clause is virtually repeated in another subsection, this time mentioning some other body altogether. It would have been far better to have chosen the right body first of all and then to have put in a provision about consultation with somebody else. All that the hon. Gentleman had to tell us was that it would be illogical not to do it. That is not an argument. That is not meeting the case. At least, he should tell us why it is illogical. What is there that makes it logical?
  I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that representatives of the A, B and C licence holders and of trade and industry may have something to contribute. I can see the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) looking at me. I say I can understand that, but I do not think any case has been made so far for this proposal from the standpoint of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can understand the argument for having these people on the Board, but I cannot understand the argument that it would be illogical that the same people should not be able to veto whether a proposal is expedient or not, or would prejudice anything or not. We are being asked to insert here a proposal which, in the words of the Economic Secretary, it would be illogical not to insert. I say it is illogical to insert it.
  Mr. Callaghan: I think my right hon. Friend will, perhaps, find the explanation of the inconsistency of this in the fact that the Government accepted this proviso in another place as the result of an Amendment moved by their own supporters.
  Mr. Brown: It is quite apparent to us from the lavish support they have had from those benches what an extremely wide understanding there is amongst Government supporters for this particular action. However, whatever are the reasons for accepting it, the Economic Secretary has made no case for it at all. I have no bias in this matter. I am prepared to listen to the case. I was even prepared to say the other argument had gone by the board. I have no feeling that something I have said has been ignored. I came in to listen to the case, and, having listened, I say that the Government's case
  1306
  is, "You do not like the Disposal Board, and we do."
  Sir John Crowder: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Mr. Deputy-Speaker does not?
  Mr. Brown: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, "I am not interested. I could not care less."
  Sir J. Crowder: No.
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants me to lengthen the discussion, which I am not altogether unwilling to do. However, I have far more reason than most people on that side of the House for having a very great interest in this matter. I discussed this at a previous stage of the Bill. I do not want to go all over that again, but since this affects the livelihood and interests of thousands of people for whom some of us have a direct responsibility, we are bound to try to see that the thing is done in the right way.
  Sir J. Crowder: I quite agree. I only pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman said, "You could not care less," which meant Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Brown: Then I did the hon. Gentleman rather more than an injustice in assuming that he had an argument to put. If all he was doing was saying that I used the word "You" when referring to the Minister, I accept the correction, although I have no doubt that Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Minister, and the Economic Secretary knew exactly to whom I was referring.
  In order to get the argument clear, I am sure the House would give the Economic Secretary leave to speak again; or, if the Minister does not want him to speak again, perhaps he could do it. Let them tell us what the case is, and, from their own standpoint, how far the position is improved by using this wholly irrelevant body to veto the Commission's decision about whether the company structure is the right thing. Tell us who on this Board has the qualifications which make him a good adviser on such a subject, let alone the exerciser of a veto. The Minister has not done that. If my hon. Friend's Amendment has to go to a Division without any greater case than the one we have already had from the Economic Secretary, I hope that not only

  1307
  my hon. and right hon. Friends, but some hon. Members opposite who are concerned for Parliamentary discussion and for sensible decisions will have the courage to support us on this occasion.
  Mr. Mitchison: Listening to this very interesting discussion, I have been trying to picture to myself a meeting of this Board to consider whether or not a company should be formed to dispose of certain lorries. Let us, for a moment, imagine who they will be. There will be the representative of the A and B licence holders. For the sake of safety, we will call him John Doe. Then there will be the representative of the C hauliers, whom we will christen Richard Roe. The two of them will be old friends. John Doe, of course, will have had some lorries taken over by the British Transport Commission, and no doubt he will not want to buy them back again. That might put him into some direct difficulty under the Bill.
  But he and his friends have their views, and very marked views, about nationalisation. They are not particularly concerned with the efficiency of public services, but they are very much concerned with the question of the price at which public lorries are going to be bought back. The C haulier, Mr. Richard Roe, will no doubt be one of the group who have been buying their own lorries to carry their own goods out of very marked political views—and there are such people, quite a lot of them, in the country.
  In addition, we shall have trade and industry represented. I am not quite sure who that will be. I am not quite certain that Mr. Gibson Jarvie would really qualify. But there will be someone or other representing trade and industry. I suppose that they will get together in a room, perhaps it will be in the Ministry— there will be advantages in having it there—and then there will be a miserable representative of the Commission to come into this group of old friends charged with keeping touch, as it were, between the Commission and the Board, and he will form, I think, a minority of one in quite a lot of their decisions.
  Then the door will open, perhaps from the Minister's room next door, and in will come the chairman and the deputy-chairman who have no qualifications except that the Minister has selected them. They
  1308
  may know nothing whatever about lorries, companies or anything else. For all I know, they may be experienced in some matter totally unconnected with these matters. I have not the foggiest idea what kind of people they will be or what kind of people they ought to be.
  But I do not think that the composition of this precious Board is going to matter very much, because if at any moment when settling a question of company formation they fail to comply with the wishes of the chairman, then it does not matter that everyone else in the room is against him, it does not matter that everyone else who has any qualifications on paper connected with the transport industry disagrees completely with him, all that has to happen is for the chairman to say, "There is no dispute" and off they will go to the Minister.
  I have never seen such an extraordinary Board of stooges as this Board is going to be. This is a Board which is put there not merely, as someone put it, to exercise a veto, but as a body without the approval of which the Commission cannot take a single step forward. What we have to consider is whether this is the right sort of body to decide on the following question: there is a fleet of lorries somewhere or another which have to be sold. They have to be sold having regard, first of all, to getting the best price; next, to the continuity of a proper and reasonable service to the public, including the needs of the public; and the question will be whether they are to be sold by forming a company or as a transport unit? What possible qualification has this extraordinary collection of stooges put up by the Minister in this Bill for deciding a question of that sort?
  The Minister would be just as well advised to appoint a collection of stockbrokers who know nothing about lorries as to appoint a collection of lorry owners who know nothing about companies. What possible point is there in this? The fact of the matter is that the composition, nature and character of this Board was put in the Bill long before any suggestion about company formation was made. It was put in at a time when there was no question about company formation, no question of deciding whether the transport should be sold by forming companies or whether it should be sold in the form of transport units. The Minister had not thought about it.

  1309
  Then it was said, "The stooges look all right." Now they do not even look all right. When we come to think of our John Doe and Richard Roe and the rest of them put in as a facade of respectability to his extraordinary collection of individuals who are to decide these problems, could there be any body more incompetent to do so?
  10.30 p.m.
  We on this side of the House know quite well that behind the Government and throughout the whole of this Bill lurk the Road Haulage Association and their friends the road hauliers, who helped them in the last Election and whose votes they think are worth while. Now that the Government's attention has been directed to it, ought they not really to take the trouble to be a little more sensible than they appear to be at present?
  If they accepted this Amendment, a certain amount of harm would be done by this debate, but their reputation has had quite a lot to suffer already, and a little more or less would not make much difference. Nothing would appear on the Statute Book to make them look quite so silly as they will look if they leave this Clause as it is.
  In these circumstances, let them have regard for posterity, for by posterity they will be judged. Considering that this is all going to be printed by the Queen's Printer and is going to become the law of the land, might they not exercise in the terms of the statute a little of the sense they have completely failed to exercise in the course of these discussions and in the form of the Amendment as it was forced upon them in the Lords?
  From our point of view, the Government represent the extreme of reaction, but if one goes to another place one finds those who can force upon the Government something even more reactionary— this proviso which we seek to have omitted.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope this proviso will be left out of the Bill for a variety of reasons of which I shall mention but three. I shall try not to cover any of the ground already covered by previous speakers. The first reason is that the proviso is repugnant to the rest of the Clause and, indeed, to the rest of the relevant parts of the
  1310
  Bill. The second is that it deprives the Commission of power and initiative, a matter which has been fully argued by earlier speakers. The third is that it constitutes a roundabout way and a very inelegant way of trying to do what, in fact, the Government has in mind.
  I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has come back, and I am sure he will agree with me out of his wide and vast knowledge of the law that he has never seen a greater conflict of ideas gathered together in a few kindred subsections and provisos than we witness in this Clause and in the proviso. In three relevant pieces of embryo legislation a number of powers are given and taken away in such a wanton fashion that they conflict with one another.
  If we take the Clause and the proviso, and Clause 3 (3), to which reference is made in the Clause, it at once becomes evident that the Commission are given certain powers to use if expedient and if they do not prejudice certain purposes. The proviso then goes on to say that the Commission shall not exercise such powers without the permission of the Board. Then we go on and find that the Board shall not give approval unless they are satisfied that certain courses of action and certain pieces of expediency occur, and that it would not prejudice certain purposes, having regard to Clause 3 (3).
  In order to substantiate the argument that I am attempting to put to the House, it is with regret that it is necessary for me to detain hon. Members for a few minutes in order to refer to the actual words of these three pieces of embryo legislation. The Clause begins:
  "If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three,"
  they may do certain things. I am shortening it for the purpose of shortening my speech. We now come to the proviso which says:
  "Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the

  1311
  purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid."
  I wonder if the Attorney-General or if any Attorney-General ever came across a more inelegant, complicated or almost meaningless piece of legislation. But the matter does not end there. If we look at Clause 3 (3), we see that it says:
  "In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender as aforesaid, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision.…"
  I spare the House the rest of that Clause, but is it not evident that those three pieces of embryo legislation conflict with one another, and even if they did not con-
  flict, I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that he could find a better, clearer and shorter way of expressing the idea which these three nonentities purport to express?
  For those three reasons, which I have put as briefly as I can having regard to the complicated nature of this Bill, I hope that the House will reject this proviso in order to introduce a little simplicity, if that be possible, into this complicated, vague and almost meaningless Measure.
  Sir Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)Sir Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) 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, 277; Noes, 254.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES

  [10.40 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hay, John

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Arbuthnot, John

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Heath Edward

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Banks, Col. C.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Barber, Anthony

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Donner, P. W.

  Holt, A. F.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Doughty, C. J. A

  Hope, Lord John

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Duncan, Capt, J. A. L.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Fell, A.

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Bishop, F. P

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Black, C. W.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hurd, A. R.

  Bossom, A. C

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'brgh W.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Hyde Lt -Col H. M.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fort, R.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Braine, B. R.

  Foster, John

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Jennings, R.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Kaberry, D.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Bullard, D. G.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Godber, J. B.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Campbell, Sir David

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Carr, Robert

  Gower, H. R.

  Law. Rt. Hon. R. K

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Channon, H.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Grimond, J.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Cole, Norman

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Low, A. R. W.

  Partridge, E

  Storey, S.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Perkins, W. R. O.

  Summers, G. S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  McCallum, Major D.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Tilney, John

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Rayner, Brig, R.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Turner, H. F. L

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Turton, R. H.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Marples, A. E.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Maude, Angus

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wade, D. W.

  Maudling, R.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Russell, R. S.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Salter, Rt Hon. Sir Arthur

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Scott, R. Donald

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Nabarro, G. D. N

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Shepherd, William

  Wellwood, W.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Wills, G.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Odey, G. W.

  Speir, R. M.

  Wood, Hon. R

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  York, C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stevens, G. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Mr. Redmayne.

  Osborne, C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Collick, P. H

  Glanville, James

  Albu, A. H.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cove, W. G.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Grey, C. F.

  Baird, J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Balfour, A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Bartley, P.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Bence, C. R

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Benson, G.

  Deer, G.

  Hannan, W.

  Beswick, F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham. E.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Hastings, S.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Boardman, H

  Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Edelman, M.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Holman, P.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Burke, W A.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Burton, Miss F. E

  Finch, H. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Follick, M.

  Hynd, H. (Acorington)

  Carmichael, J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Champion, A J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Chapman, W D

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Janner, B.

  Clunie, J.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Coldrick, W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  1314

  1315

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Sparks, J. A.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Oliver, G. H

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Orbach, M.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Joins, David (Hartlepool)

  Oswald, T.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Padley, W. E

  Swingler, S T.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Keenan, W.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Pannell, Charles

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Pargiter, G. A

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

  Parker, J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Paton, J.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Pearson, A.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Peart, T. F.

  Thornton, E.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Timmons, J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Poole, C. C.

  Tomney, F.

  MacColl, J. E

  Popplewell, E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  McGhee, H. G

  Porter, G.

  Usborne, H. C.

  McGovern, J.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Wallace, H. W.

  McInnes, J.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestwshire, W)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  West D. G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rhodes, H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Richards, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Robens, Rt. Hon, A.

  Wigg, George

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Rogers, George (Kensington, H.)

  Willey, F. T.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ross, William

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Royle, C.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Monslow, W

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Moody, A. S.

  Short, E. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Morley, R.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Horns, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. S)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Mort, D. L.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Moyle, A.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Mulley, F. W

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Yates, V. F.

  Murray, J. D

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Nally, W.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Snow, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Mr. Bowden and

  O'Brien, T.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

  Question put accordingly, "That 'Provided' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes. 276; Noes, 253.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES

  [10.50 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Braine, B. R.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Alport, C J. M

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Donner, P. W.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Doughty, C. J. A

  Banks, Col. C.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Barber, Anthony

  Carr, Robert

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Channon, H.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Erroll, F. J

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Fell, A.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cole, Norman

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Conant, Maj R. J. E.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Birch, Nigel

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Bishop, F. P.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Fort, R.

  Black, C. W.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Foster, John

  Bossom, A. C.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Crouch, R. F.

  Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D.(Pollok)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Godber, J. B.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Russell, R. S.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Cower, H. R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  McCallum, Major D.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Scott, R. Donald

  Grimond, J.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Harden, J R. E.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Speir, R. M.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hay, John

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Marples, A. E.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Heath, Edward

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maude, Angus

  Storey, S.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Maudling, R.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Summers, G. S.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythernshawe)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mellor, Sir John

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Holt, A. F.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Hope, Lord John

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Horsbrugh Rt. Hon. Florence

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Tilney, John

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Turner, H. F. L

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Turton, R. H.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Odey, G. W.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hurd, A. R.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Wade, D. W.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-mare)

  wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Osborne, C.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Jennings, R

  Partridge, E.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

  Kaberry, D.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Watkinson H. A.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Pickthorn, K. W. M

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Pilkington, Capt R. A

  Wellwood, W.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Wills, G.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Wood, Hon. R

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Rees-Davies, W. R

  York, C

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Renton, D. L M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Linstead, H. N.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Blackburn, F.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Champion, A. J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Boardman, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Clunie, J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bowles, F. G.

  Coldrick, W.

  Baird, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Collick, P. H.

  Balfour, A.

  Brookway, A F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Cove, W. G.

  Bartley, P.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Bence, C R

  Burke, W. A.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Benson, G.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Beswick, F.

  Callaghan, L J.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Carmichael, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  1318

  1319

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Rhodes, H.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Richards, R.

  Deer, G.

  Keenan, W.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dodds, N. N.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Ross, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Royle, C.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Edelman, M.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Short, E. W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Logan, D. G.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  McGovern, J.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McInnes, J.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Fienburgh, W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Finch, H. J.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

  Follick, M.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Snow, J. W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Sparks, J. A

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mason, Roy

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Glanville, James

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mitchison, G. B.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Grenfell Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Grey, C. F.

  Moody, A. S

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Mort, D. L.

  Thornton, E.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Timmons, J.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Mulley, F. W

  Tomney, F.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hannan, W.

  Nally, W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)

  Hastings, S.

  O'Brien, T.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  West, D. G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Orbach, M.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Oswald, T.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Padley, W. E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Hobson, C. R

  Paget, R. T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Holman, P.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Wigg, George

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Houghton, Douglas

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Panned, Charles

  Willey, F. T.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pargiter. G. A

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, J

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paton, J.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hynd, H. (Acorington)

  Pearson, A

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Peart, T. F

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Poole, C. C.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Popplewell, E.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Janner, B.

  Porter, G.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Proctor, W. T

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Mr. Bowden and

  Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), after "Provided," to insert:
  "that if the said shares have not been disposed of by the end of year nineteen hundred and fifty-four the Commission may retain all or part thereof:
  Provided also."
  1320
  The new Claues which has come from their Lordships' House is drawn on the basis that all the shares of a given under-taking or company should be sold in one parcel. This matter has been argued, up to a point, in relation to previous Lords Amendments. We are doubtful whether the shares will be sold in one parcel. It is uncertain whether a tenderer will

  1321
  be willing to tender for the whole of the shares. Moreover, in so far as it has been a steady Government argument that the little man should be catered for, it is contradictory to that argument that the shares should be sold in one parcel.
  Therefore, we would prefer to go upon the basis that the whole of the shares may, or may not, be sold in one parcel. It may well be the case that a number of the shares will be sold over a period and that a considerable number will be left in the hands of the Transport Commission. [Interruption] I am told I may be wrong about the one parcel argument, but it will emerge in the course of the arguments on later Amendments to the Lords Amendments.
  In any case, it is not desirable to assume that all the shares are to be sold. If at the end of 1954, it so happens that a number of shares—maybe a small number, a substantial number, or a large number—are left in the hands of the Commission, what is the situation which will emerge then? It is that at that point there will be no certainty as to the future of the undertaking. There will be instability; there will be difficulty; there will be uncertainty. Consequently, the management will not know where they are from week to week. The proprietary control may be in one hand in one month and in other hands in another. The workpeople will lack all security of tenure. It seems to us, therefore, desirable that something should be done to enable stability to be reached. The other point is that at the end of 1954 the 25-mile radius restriction comes to an end, and that is another reason why everybody should know where he stands.
  The purpose of our Amendment is to provide that the shares remaining in the hands of the Commission can be retained in whole or in part in the hands of the Commission themselves. It does not follow that they will refuse to sell any more of the shares, but they can retain the shares in whole or in part that are left upon their hands. In that situation the control of the further sale of the shares would be within the powers of the (Commission, and they should be able to ensure more stability than would otherwise be the case.
  There is no need to provide in the Bill that there should be an obligation
  1322
  on the Commission to get rid of these things in any circumstances. They are told to dispose of the shares to companies that they are going to form as soon as practicable. No doubt the Commission will act in good faith under that direction of the statute if the statute so passes, but it may not be practicable. In which case, what happens? It seems to us that the sensible course is to provide that if, at the end of 1954, some of the shares remain in the hands of the Commission they should have the discretion to retain all or part of them. Thereby the situation will remain to a considerable extent within the control of the Commission, and a chaotic situation, which might have grave consequences for the workpeople, may be avoided.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): In this very friendly atmosphere it is a comfort to me, as one who found himself off the line in the early hours of today, in replying to a debate on an Amendment, to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), with all his experience, capable of doing the same thing. It is good to know that we all make mistakes. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that this suggestion bears a strong family resemblance to one which we debated before the Bill left this House, to the effect that lorries not disposed of by a certain date might be retained by the Commission.
  The argument with which I shall meet this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is much the same, too, as that used on that other occasion. I am not, in this atmosphere of co-operation and friendship, going to suggest that this is a wrecking Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has moved, but that it would have a hampering effect, and a seriously hampering effect at that, upon the policy of the Government. We have insisted from the very first day of the Committee stage, when almost the first topic we discussed was the membership of the Disposal Board, that the Board should proceed with all reasonable speed —"as quickly as is reasonably practicable." That also applies to the disposal of the shares.
  If carried, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be bound inevitably

  1323
  to have a dilatory effect upon the Commission in disposing of their shares. I should have thought that that argument was self-evident. We believe that reasonable speed is the essence of the contract here, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, made in however good faith, would have the effect of slowing down that process. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] The end of 1954 might well arrive leaving the Commission—and the right hon. Gentleman himself hinted at this—with very large numbers of shares on their hands of which they had failed to dispose. I suggest that the position thus created would be invidious in the extreme, and the effect might well be that when the date arrived all that would have happened would be that the shares held by the Commission might have found their way into companies controlled by the Commission itself. That is the sort of thing which is bound to happen.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of stability. At the end of these long debates and after many discussions, we all know what it is that divides the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite have quite properly and legitimately endeavoured throughout these proceedings to take steps which would hamper Government policy in disposing whether of vehicles or of shares. We do not complain of that.
  Mr. Paget: Perhaps the hon. Member can help me with one thing which I find puzzling. What is to happen to these shares if they cannot be sold?
  Mr. Braithwaite: That is not the issue which we are discussing at the moment. What we are discussing, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, is whether shares not disposed of by a certain date —a date which he wishes to write in: 31st December, 1954—should be retained by the Commission.
  Mr. H. Morrison: My argument was directed to the very point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) visualises. It is precisely because of those apprehensions, which I share, that within a reasonable time—and the end of 1954 is some time ahead—if the Commission have not disposed of the shares the situation will be left in the air. My hon. and learned Friend wants to know what will happen.
  1324
  I am trying to provide the answer by giving the Commission a discretion—it is not being a binding obligation—to retain them. My hon. and learned Friend's question is relevant and worthy of an answer.
  Mr. Braithwaite: In the Amendment we are discussing a time limit. If that time limit were to be reached in a situation in which there were very large numbers of shares in the hands of the Commission, one imagines that what would happen would be one of two things—or probably both; they would either be re-formed in a more marketable manner or they would be disposed of as units. I want to keep to the narrow point, because this is a narrow point. We have not yet arrived at that situation, and what we are anxious to do —and I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) takes the point—is to dispose of as many shares as possible as quickly as possible. I am sure he will take the point when I suggest that it is a definite temptation to those anxious to retain control of a large number of shares, for whatever purpose, to know that all they have to do is to play out time until stumps are drawn.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
  Mr. Braithwaite: I hope I am not being discourteous, but at this stage I am only immediately following the right hon. Gentleman in order to place before the House the broad issue. There will be an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen to develop their points. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would hamper the smooth working of our policy, and I must suggest that the Amendment cannot be accepted.
  Mr. Paget: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the point I was putting. Let us assume that every effort is made to sell these shares, but that by the end of 1954 some are not sold. What is to happen to those shares? This Amendment simply provides that they may be retained, not that they must. If they may not be retained, and that is presumably what happens if this Amendment is rejected, what is to happen? Is this property to be given away? Is it to be sold at a completely knock-down price? Is it to be given to the United Dominions Trust? Is that one of their perquisites, and one of the ramifications

  1325
  of these mysterious bids? Surely we are entitled to know the future of this public property.
  Mr. Braithwaite: I am sorry if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought I gave him a bad answer: I thought I gave him rather a good one. When the time comes, those responsible for the disposal, if they find themselves in a position where the shares have not gone, or they are landed with them, will undoubtedly do what others would do. They would reform the companies in a more marketable form, or dispose of the units. It is not for me to say whether they would seek as ready buyers the United Dominions Trust or the Co-operative Society, or anyone else.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman assured us that the Government were opposing the Amendment on the ground that it would have a dilatory effect on the process of disposal described in this new Clause. But he was not able to tell us any reason why it should be expected to have that effect. Let us look at the whole context in which this process will be carried on. The Commission will not be operating the facility provided in this new Clause—the facility of disposing of property in this particular way—except with the consent of the Board, and that consent has to be given not only to the original proposal to try to dispose of property in this way, but it has to be given to almost every disposal of property in this way, which one sees if one follows the wording of the new Clause now.
  The Commission, therefore, are carrying out their work under the most diligent supervision of the Board at every stage, and we know, of course, from the composition of the Board that its main desire, and, indeed, its main purpose, will be to return the public property to private hands at all costs, in all circumstances and as soon as possible. That is what the Board is for, as was clearly shown in discussions on previous Amendments.
  If, therefore, it were possible for the Commission, by virtue of this proposed Amendment, to be dilatory, it would mean that the Board was simply not performing the job for which it was originally created, that the Government regarded it not only as an anti-social body, but had no faith in it to carry out the anti-social purpose for which it
  1326
  was created. Quite frankly, if the Government believe that the matter will work in the way they have described, it is quite out of the question that the Commission should be in a position to perform dilatory action merely by virtue of an Amendment of this kind.
  Let us suppose that under this new Clause it is proposed to dispose of a certain amount of property in this way, that the Board has been satisfied that all the steps of procedure necessary have been taken and that the approval of the Board has been obtained, a Board concerned all the time with getting the public property sold, and yet, by the end of 1943, some of it is not sold.
  If that is so, is it not at least possible that it has not been sold because there are good reasons, either of economics or public interest, why it should not pass into private hands? Nobody can question that that is at least a possibility. But what does the Parliamentary Secretary say? He says, in fact, "Never mind about all that, never mind about why it has not been sold, never mind about the possibility that it might be in the public interest for it to remain in public hands. If this Amendment is passed it will hamper the policy of the Government. We believe in selling the public property to our acquaintances. That is our policy, and we do not propose to have that policy interfered with, even if the public interest points in the other direction. So determined are we about it that even though we do not quite know"—as was apparent from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech—" what would happen to the shares in these circumstances, the one thing we are determined about is that they shall not remain public property."
  That is a doctrinaire ideology run completely mad, and solely for the sake of that belief, without any regard for the general interest of the public as a whole, the Government intend to adopt that method of disposal. No attempt was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the forceful argument on grounds of public interest advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). Indeed, for some considerable time now it has been apparent from the speeches made from the Government Front Bench that there has been no serious attempt to answer any major argument advanced from this side of the House.

  1327
  The Economic Secretary made no attempt in his speech to consider the arguments advanced, and I am afraid that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall have a similar speech planted on us. When he was asked the question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if the shares were not to be retained by the Commission what is to happen to them, he said that one of two other events, or possibly both, might happen. The first was that the companies will be reformed into more marketable form. In other words, despite all the presumed vigilance exercised by the Board in this process, apparently when on the first occasion it proved impossible to sell public property to private persons, a desperate attempt must be made to find some other means to dispose of the property, despite solid evidence that that was not a desirable way of disposing of it.
  The alternative was that it was to be sold in units. If I understand that correctly, it means that the whole process described in this new Clause would be scrapped, even though it had been embarked upon by the Commission and only embarked upon after the Board had decided it was the right thing to do to dispose of the goods. They would revert to the other method of disposal. Only someone looking desperately for alternatives to public ownership would have put forward those two possibilities, because the rejection of the Amendment moved by this side of the House means that not only do the Government say, "We do not want all the shares that are unsold at the end of 1954," but they are going further and saying, "We insist that none of the shares that were unsold at the end of 1954 should remain on public hands."
  The line of argument put up by the Parliamentary Secretary is something like this, "I have gone through a show of answering the arguments advanced in the public interest by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South but I do not propose seriously to answer them. I am concerned to see that the policy of the Government is carried through. The arguments concerned with the public interest are common sense and good economics, but they will not weigh with us. We are determined to carry through the policy of the sale of public
  1328
  property to private persons at all costs with as much speed as possible and with as little regard to the public interest as possible."
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I shall not keep the House more than a minute or two. It is quite clear why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should want to move an Amendment of this sort, because anything they can do, by fair means or foul, to secure that the Commission retains the maximum amount of property they will do. So we look at an Amendment of this sort with suspicion from the start. It is quite clear that the Government could never accept an Amendment of this kind. First of all. it conflicts with Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, where we find that a magnificent, stimulating and worthy task is laid upon the Commission to dispose as soon as is practical of all their property in this field.
  In those circumstances, there is a high duty confronting the Commission, and for this purpose the Commission will have the Disposal Board at their side constantly stimulating them and helping them with suggestions of ways and means by which these shares can be sold. If that is not enough, there are great and small financial institutions up and down the country, which are worthy and reputable financial trusts, which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen represent as much as they represent some of their other constituents, which will play their part in this scheme. With all these great organisations and worthwhile societies there is no doubt that these shares will be sold and, what is more, sold exceedingly well. Any idea that the Government should depart from the central principle of the Bill, which is to secure the maximum provision for the sale of these shares with the utmost celerity, is beyond question, even at this late stage of the Bill.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: I did not think that the argument of the noble Lord assisted the argument of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, because the noble Lord proceeded on the basis that the whole of the shares will be sold. If it turns out that the whole of the shares will have been disposed of by the end of 1954, then the Amendment which we are discussing—the Amendment to the

  1329
  Lords Amendment—will have no operation; because that is designed to cover the contingency that some of the shares will not be sold.
  If he is right, and the financial companies, and the United Dominions Trust, and all the rest, buy up all these assets before the end of 1954 at a fair price, or something less than a fair price, then this Amendment would not come into operation. Therefore, on the assumption of the noble Lord, there can be no ground whatever for resisting the Amendment moved from this side of the House.
  May I turn to the matter which is the subject of my brief remarks by saying that I thought the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary was even more appalling than his effort in the early hours of this morning. It seems clear that he has not understood what the Lords Amendments are about, and I am glad to see the Attorney-General with us again this evening. I should like to pursue the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. R. T. Paget) because I do think the House is entitled to know what will be the legal position under this proposed new Clause, as it stands, in the event of some of these shares not being sold by the end of 1954.
  That is a contingency which must be envisaged because, although there is an obligation in subsection (1), there are also obligations elsewhere to ensure that these assets are disposed of at satisfactory prices; and the Commission would fail in its duty if it accepted less than that. Subsection (5) of the new Clause lays an express obligation on the Board, and the Commission, that no offer shall be accepted unless deemed reasonable and I should like to ask the Attorney-General this question.
  Assuming that this Amendment is rejected, what will be the legal position of shares not sold at the end of 1954? I would have assumed— naturally, I accept whatever interpretation the Attorney-General may give— that if some of these shares are not sold by the end of next year they remain the property of the Commission, and that the Commission retains them. The only possible construction which can be placed on the subsection is that if they are not sold by the end of 1954 then it is the duty of the Commission to give them
  1330
  away. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting? Would the Attorney-General tell me whether I am right in thinking that, as the new Clause is drafted at the moment, in the event of some of these shares not being sold by the end of 1954 they remain the property of the Commission?
  Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend would permit me, what the Parliamentary Secretary told me was not that they would be given away but that the companies would be reconstructed, and what I have been trying to discover ever since is what power there is to reconstruct any of these companies. Are we to have a manuscript Amendment at a later stage?
  Mr. Fletcher: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I was coming on to that. It was quite apparent to me that when my hon. and learned Friend put the point to the Parliamentary Secretary the Parliamentary Secretary had not the faintest idea what the answer was. That is why he blathered something about the companies being re-formed. I do not know whether he thinks he knows what he means by saying that the companies would, somehow or other, be re-formed.
  As my hon. and learned Friend says, there is no provision for companies to be re-formed. What does he mean when he talks about re-forming the companies? We are talking about shares in the companies formed under this subsection, the shares toeing the property of the Commission, and we are talking upon the hypothesis that some or all of the shares in a particular company formed under this subsection will not have been sold by the end of 1954. Obviously, that is a matter upon which the House must know what the position is.
  I put two alternatives. One is that they will be retained anyhow, and the second, which I cannot conceive would be the policy even of this Government, is that they will be given away or thrown away at a knockout price. In a moment we are to have the advice of the Attorney-General, and I want to ask him this specific question. Does the Attorney-General accept the view that at the end of 1954, in the event of some of these shares not having been sold, the companies can then be re-formed?
  There is no power in the subsection to authorise the re-formation of the com-

  1331
  panies. If the companies were re-formed, as I read the subsection, there would be no power to sell the shares in a company which had been re-formed. This is obviously another glaring example of slipshod and ill thought out legislation that has come to us from another place, and which we are being asked to accept without any clear or intelligent explanation from any of the Ministers involved of what the new Clause means.
  In that situation, the first object of the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) moved, is to clarify the subsection and to make it abundantly plain that in the event of some of these shares not having been sold at the end of 1954, the Commission will retain them. That is implicit in the subsection as it stands. I think that that is the most probable explanation of the subsection. It may well be that the Attorney-General will tell us that these words are unnecessary, but even if he tells us that I still suggest that in the interests of making this matter abundantly clear the Government should accept the Amendment. That is the first proposition I want to advance.
  The second proposition is that, even though there should be any doubt, there is the possibility that in the case of one or other of the companies that will be formed under the new Clause some shares may be sold and others may be unsold. I am perfectly well aware that the Clause provides for sale in one parcel, but there are other Amendments on the Order Paper for the elimination of those words, It seems to me far more sensible, when we come to deal with subsections (3) and (4), that the House will wish to amend the Clause so as to enable the Commission to have the greatest possible measure of flexibility, for selling either the whole in one parcel or selling one part and retaining the remainder, either temporarily or for a substantial period. That may be the best way for the Commission to discharge their duty of realising the assets in the best national interest.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It seems to me that the hon. Member's argument is directed to an Amendment that will be taken later.
  Mr. Fletcher: We are in the difficulty that the new Clause has not yet had a
  1332
  Second Reading, as it were, and we have to deal with each Amendment as we go along.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot go on to discuss an Amendment that has not yet been reached.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) that we would have been perfectly prepared to have a general discussion on the new Clause if we could have arrived at some agreement as to how long it would take. There are 26 Amendments to the Clause, and provided that we had had an assurance that they would have been taken formally we would have been prepared to have had a general discussion.
  We have had the hon. Member's argument before. It was advanced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). All this is part of the inevitable consequences of Parliamentary procedure; it has nothing to do with this Bill. We would be quite prepared to have a general discussion of the Amendments provided that, having done that, the Amendments would be taken formally.
  Mr. Callaghan: That all depends, of course, upon the amount of time which the Minister thinks reasonable for the disposal of the Clause. In fact, we should have been finished with the whole new Clause and the Amendments by now under any sort of arrangement to which the Minister might have been prepared to come, but it does not seem to me to be a workable proposition.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: You called me to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the point that I could not deal with the other Amendments which are on the Order Paper. With great respect, it seems to me that I must be entitled, in the process of arguing for the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, to deal with the matter either on the hypothesis of what the position would be if the Clause were accepted by the House as it stands, or on the hypothesis of some of the subsequent Amendments being passed.
  I do not propose to argue for or against the merits of any of the subsequent Amendments, but I think the Minister must recognise that under the procedure, in dealing with my right hon. Friend's Amendment, we must look at

  1333
  the situation in the light of the fact that some of the subsequent Amendments may be passed or may be defeated. Under the procedure, that is the only way in which we can carry on this debate.
  11.45 p.m.
  What I was trying to say to the House in relation to the elucidation of the merits of my right hon. Friend's Amendment is that, in the event of a later Amendment being accepted, we shall find, at the end of 1954, the Commission owning some of the shares of one of these companies, but not all the shares. We may find that the Commission may realise that that is the best way of disposing of their assets. If that were the case at the end of 1954, it would be essential that the Commission should have the express power written into the Bill of being able to retain these shares. Therefore, for that reason as well, I very much hope that the House will clarify the present obscurity on this Clause and accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.
  The Attorney-General: As a matter of courtesy to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I should like, if I can, to help him with regard to the legal point. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will be relieved to know that, on this occasion, I shall confine myself to legal considerations.
  I have been asked two questions. The first was in regard to the position in which it is supposed that the Commission had not sold all the shares by the end of the year. Purely as a matter of law and the construction of subsection (3), the position is that they shall proceed to sell all the shares as soon as reasonably practicable. If it is not reasonably practicable, having regard to other conditions, to secure the disposal of the shares at that time, it will not require a profound knowledge of the law, common sense or the facts of life to know that some will still, therefore, be in their hands, and I would have thought that that was the answer to the first question.
  The second question raised the point as to what can be done to a company in the way of reconstruction or rearrangement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, East is much better versed
  1334
  than I am in that branch of the law, and, under company law, he knows much better than I do that it does not require statutory provision to allow a company to operate under the Companies Act. So long as the company continue to comply with the provisions—that is to say, that they are a company within the terms of the Section—I cannot see that there is anything in the Act which prevents any rearrangement in the structure of the company such as may be required.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: May I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the subsection which applies limitations to the right of the company to dispose of their shares?
  The Attorney-General: Subject to the limitations contained in the Section.
  Mr. Paget: I cannot help feeling that a good deal of time might be saved to the House if the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in charge of this Bill were to get together outside and make up their minds what their Bill means, because we have had, once again, the same pathetic performance. The Parliamentary Secretary gets up to reply. He is, if he will forgive me saying so, "waffling" a little, but, at least, he made one point perfectly clear, and that was that the intention of the Government, and the intention of the Bill, was that these shares could not be retained after 1954.
  Indeed, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made a vigorous contribution, which elicited enthusiastic head-noddings from the Minister, to the effect that it would be unsuitable for the Commission to be allowed to retain these shares. "Unthinkable," said the noble Lord. Then the Attorney-General got up and, when asked what happens in 1954 if the shares are not sold, said that the Commission retained them. Cannot they put their heads together and save us a little time by getting some agreement on this kind of question?
  Mr. Braithwaite: It is the hon. and learned Gentleman who is "waffling." What I said was that to put in the Bill a definite provision that shares not sold by 31st December, 1954, could be retained, was, in my view, a temptation to dilatory conduct in disposing of them. I never said, and the hon. and learned

  1335
  Gentleman will not find it on record, that shares have to be disposed of by 31st December, 1954.
  Mr. Paget: What the hon. Gentleman said was that they could not retain them after 1954. He finds himself at difference with the Attorney-General, and now with himself. When pressed on a previous occasion as to what they did when they found these shares on their hands in 1954, the hon. Gentleman's answer was that they would reconstruct or re-form the companies.
  I am still very interested to know how that process takes place. To provide an explanation in a court, which is simply an invention to get out of a difficulty, is something which is sometimes described by an unparliamentary word, which I will certainly not bring in, but, it is a very odd thing to do. We have had the Attorney-General's assistance and he says that although no special powers to reconstruct or re-form the companies appears in this Bill, the companies have the power under the Companies Act and would reconstruct themselves under these powers. I ask the Attorney-General whether he has thought out that one.
  These are somewhat special companies. The power to form is for particular purposes provided by this Bill. If one is going to re-form a company, that would mean changing the purposes hereby provided. I ask the Attorney-General whether he could give some illustration of the kind of reconstruction or re-forming which could take place in a company formed expressly under these powers, and particularly in view of subsections (11) and (13). Subsection (11) provides that
  "A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

  (a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and

  (b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose_ of any of its property to the Commission,

  but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property."
  It goes on:
  "Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section."
  Subsection (13) says:
  "Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this
  1336
  section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1)."
  Would the Attorney-General observe those words? Can he tell us what form of reconstruction or re-formation is available to a company with these limitations? It is a serious point and we are most anxious to know. I will give way to the Attorney-General. Will he tell us what reconstruction or reformation is available to a company under these very limited terms?
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants an answer I will tell him what I said before. There is absolutely no limitation whatever here on the exercise of the powers of a company under the Companies Act provided the conditions therein laid down as regards the purpose for which the company is being formed are being complied with.
  Mr. Paget: But the whole trouble is the limitation of the purpose here, which makes reconstruction or re-formation quite impossible. Let us just take this a little bit further, because we are very interested in this point. I am sure that when the Parliamentary Secretary provides us with the intention of the Government in these very foreseeable circumstances he does that seriously. What form of re-forming the company or of reconstruction of the company is to be effected in the circumstances in which it is held? Can they form a private company? Can they form a public company? How does reform or reconstruction within the terms of this new Clause provide a solution as to the disposal of these shares that may remain on their hands in 1954? Is not the real answer that the Government simply have not considered this, and are in the same sort of muddle we are up against time and again?
  The Attorney-General: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an explanation, but I cannot enable him to understand it.
  Mr. Paget: That is an observation that has been made on a good many occasions. It is not very original. But I am not the only one who has certain difficulty in understanding this. There are a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen here who have the difficulty, too. After all,

  1337
  it is the Government's job to make their intentions and their Bills comprehensible even to people with such limited intelligence as mine. That is what the Government are here for, and they have somewhat singularly failed. We are still very interested in the reconstruction or reformation of this company which we are told about. We want to know how it is to happen.
  12 midnight.
  The Commission have not been able to sell a company. What re-formation of that company will enable them to sell it? What had the Parliamentary Secretary in his mind when he told us that he knew the solution? That is what we want to know, and that is what nobody will tell us. We get unoriginal remarks like, "We can give you reasons, but we cannot give you the sense to understand it," but nobody here can discover what is the intention of the Government.
  A great many of these companies may remain unsold in 1954. Many people may feel that this carcase of the national transport system may prove financially indigestible to them. Even if they are offered loans by the United Dominions Trust they may not want the company because they may think that another Government will come into office and that the people who tried to take part in this public robbery will regret it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now going a little too far from the Amendment.
  Mr. Paget: Is that really so? Surely, when we are considering what is to be done with property in 1954, we have to consider what property is likely to be there in 1954. I suggested some reasons. I may be wrong, but surely they ought to be mentioned.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said our Amendment might be an encouragement not to sell. If we do not insert it, will there not be a great encouragement not to buy? What the Government would then be saying to an association financed by a single company, with a special company formed to finance it, would be this, "This has to be disposed of by 1954, and if you hang on long enough you will get it at your own price." It is to avoid that situation that we have moved our Amendment.
  That is the real issue. It is not a question of encouraging the Commission
  1338
  to hold on to it. The Disposal Board are there to sell it. What we wish to do is to remove from the mind of those who are buying the prospect that by simply hanging on and waiting until the end of 1954 they can get it at a knock-down price at the public expense. That is the point with which the Government must deal, and nobody has attempted to deal with it. The Government have merely prevaricated.
  Mr. Leanox-Boyd: It is a little unfortunate that, at the end of a quite spirited debate, in which one thing among many others has been made absolutely clear, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has failed to grasp that one thing. There is no obligation for the shares to be disposed of by the end of 1954. That has been said at least three times and I will now say it a fourth time. I hope that it will now penetrate his learned intelligence. The only relevance of 1954 to this matter is that at the end of 1954 the 25-mile limit comes to an end. Naturally, the value both of transport units and of companies may be thought likely then to diminish.
  Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman says that they need not be disposed of until 1954. Does he agree that if they are not' disposed of they will be retained by the Commission? If he agrees, what are we arguing about?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will come to that. All that I was dealing with was the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, once more repeated, that the property must be disposed of by the end of 1954. The particular relevance of 1954—as other hon. Gentlemen know—is the fact that at the end of that year the 25-mile limit comes to an end. However, there is the duty on the Commission to dispose of their property, whether in transport units or companies, as quickly as is reasonably practicable, and we have every belief that that duty will be punctiliously discharged.
  This discussion was started in a curious way by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). After he had discovered which Amendment we were on he made the astonishing statement about the company structure that proprietary control going from one hand in one month to another hand in another month would

  1339
  cause uncertainty. It was precisely because of the advantages of proprietary control that the Commission urged that there should be a company structure. Certainly, Lord Hurcomb and others repeatedly said that the best interests of the workpeople in the Commission's undertaking might be helped in some way by the company structure because they would feel part of a living organism which might pass smoothly into other hands. It might well be thought that in certain cases people might be almost unconscious of the change of ownership, although we very much hope that the company structure will provide a welcome spur.
  There is, of course, a real conflict here, and it would be idle to deny it. We are anxious that the property of the Road Haulage Executive should be disposed of. As the noble Lord said, the Opposition do not want to dispose of it. They want to find every possible chance of preventing its rapid disposal. This is the real conflict. We are concerned that the Commission should have five-fourths of the old railway companies' holdings, but apart from this, in their own road haulage sector, their duty to dispose of all their property is absolute. This Amendment would frustrate one of the main purposes of the Bill, and as such, of course, it cannot possibly be accepted.
  Three hon. Gentlemen—the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) all asked what would happen if the shares were not sold by the end of 1954. They have had the same answer from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General. The shares could be retained by the Commission. It is their duty to dispose of them as quickly as practicable, but, pending that, they could remain. The companies could be reconstructed. As the Attorney-General said, there is nothing which would prevent in this Clause, or under subsection (11) of this Amendment, the property being disposed of to the Commission who are still under the duty to dispose of it. They could, therefore, dispose of it in another form or another way. If it is suggested, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, that there is no change in a company,
  1340
  which might make one company more marketable than another, then he must be extraordinarily ignorant of capital structure conditions.
  Finally, the property could, of course, be disposed of under Clause 4 as units, or under Clause 5 as chattels. I cannot believe that even at this hour there is any inability anywhere to understand this perfectly clear situation.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I think the right hon. Gentleman has now made it clear that if these shares are not sold by the end of 1954, the Commission will be allowed to retain them. Am I right about that?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Ask questions and I will answer them.
  Mr. Stewart: Am I right in supposing that if any of these shares are still unsold by 1954, those which are unsold will remain in the hands of the Commission, though I presume they will still be under a duty to go on trying to sell them? Am I right in that supposition?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I cannot answer with the hon. Gentleman standing up, not even at this hour.
  The duty of the Commission is to get rid of the Road Haulage Executive properties. If they find difficulty in getting rid of them in the particular shareholding groups in which they have been established, the various machineries I have outlined are open to them, and then, if in the view of the Disposal Board the time has come for the units or such companies as are not sold to be disposed of as chattels, at that moment they will have to dispose of all remaining vehicles as chattels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That has been argued out, and it is an inescapable part of the Bill which has already, as Mr. Speaker said, passed this House.
  I am sure it is the hope of everybody that the sooner this business can be properly transacted the better, because it cannot be argued that it is good for the industry that a state of uncertainty should continue indefinitely.
  Mr. Donald Kaberry Mr. Donald Kaberry (Leeds, North-West) 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, 234; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES

  [12.15 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Odey, G. W.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.(Blackburn, W.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Osborne, C.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Hay, John

  Partridge, E.

  Baldock, Lt.-Comdr.. J M.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Heath, Edward

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Pilkington, Capt. R A.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hope, Lord John

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Bishop, F. P.

  Howard, Hon. Grevile (St. Ives)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Black, C. W.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Redmayne, M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hurd, A. R.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Roberts, Peter (Hoeley)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hutchison. Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Bullard, D. G.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Lambton, Viscount

  Scott, R. Donald

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Shepherd, William

  Campbell, Sir David

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Carr, Robert

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Channon, H.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Cole, Norman

  Linstead, H. N.

  Speir, R. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Longden, Gilbert

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hen. H. F. C.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Studholme, H. G

  Crouch, R. F.

  Lucas, P. B (Brentford)

  Summers, G. S.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Dormer, P. W.

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Tilney, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Turton, R. H

  Erroll, F. J.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Fell, A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Marples, A. E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J, K.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Maude, Angus

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Maudling R.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Fort, R.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Foster, John

  Mellor, Sir John

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Wellwood, W.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydan, E.)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnnam)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Gower, H. R.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Wills, G.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Nutting, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Pearson, A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Peart, T. F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hale, Leslie

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Popplewell, E.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Porter, G.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Bartley, P.

  Hannan, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Rankin, John

  Bence, C. R.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Benson, G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Beswick, F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Holman, P.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Ross, William

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Royle, C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Short, E. W.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Janner, B.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Carmichael, J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Snow, J. W.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Chapman, W. D.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, T. W (Merioneth)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Keenan, W.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Collick, P. H.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thornton, E.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Timmons, J.

  Deer, G.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, F.

  Delargy, H. J

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Dodds, N. N.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Wallace, H. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mason, Roy

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mellish, R. J

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Edelman, M.

  Mikardo, Ian

  West, D. G.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Monslow, W.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Wigg, George

  Fernyhough, E.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mort, D. L.

  Willey, F. T.

  Finch, H. J.

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Follick, M.

  Murray, J. D.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Foot, M. M.

  Meal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  O'Brien, T.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Orbach, M.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Oswald, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Paget, R. T.

  Yates, V. F.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grey, C. F.

  Pannell, Charles

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Pargiter, G, A.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 233.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES

  [12.22 a.m.

  Adams, Richard

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Pearson, A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Peart, T. F.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Hale, Leslie

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Popplewell, E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Porter, G.

  Bartley, P.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hannan, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bence, C. R.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Rankin, John

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Hayman, F. H.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Benson, G.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Beswiok, F.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holman, P.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Ross, William

  Boardman, H.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Royle, C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesy)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Short, E. W.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Janner, B.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Carmichael, J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Snow, J. W.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Chapman, W. D.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Collick, P. H.

  Keenan, W.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

  Swingler, S. T.

  Cove, W. G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thornton, E

  do Freitas, Geoffrey

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Timmons, J.

  Deer, G.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Dodds, N. N.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mason, Roy

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Edelman, M.

  Mikardo, Ian

  West, D. G.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Monslow, W.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Morris, Perey (Swansea, W.)

  Wigs, George

  Ferny hough, E.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mort, D. L.

  Willey, F. T.

  Finch, H. J.

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Follick, M.

  Murray, J. D.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Foot, M. M.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  O'Brien, T.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Orbach, M.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Oswald, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Gibson, C. W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Paget, R. T.

  Yates, V. F.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grey, C. F.

  Pannell, Charles

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Black, C. W.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Arbuthnot, John

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Braine, B. R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Asshaton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Birch, Nigel

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  1346

  1347

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Hudson, W. R- A. (Hull, N.)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bullus, Whig Commander E. E.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Carr, Robert

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Channon, H.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Redmayne, M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Cora, Norman

  Lambton, Viscount

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Russell, R. S.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdala)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepherd, William

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Low, A. R. W.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Donner, P. W.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  McCalium, Major D.

  Speir, R. M.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Fell, A.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stevens, G. P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Summers, G. S.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Fort, R.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Foster, John

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Markham. Major S. F.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Cough, C. F. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.

  Gower, H. R.

  Maudling, R.

  Tilney, John

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Turton, R. H.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hall, John (Wyoombe)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Nabarro, G. O. N.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Hay John

  Nutting, Anthony

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Heald Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Heath, Edward

  Odey, G. W.

  Wellwood, W.

  Higgs J. M. C.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Wills, G.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Holland-Martin C. J.

  Osborne, C.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Partridge, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hope, Lord John

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
  We have not made such progress by now as we had hoped, or, indeed, as might have been thought reasonable. We thought that we should have been able to get today the big Lords Amend-
  1348
  ment—only Amendments to which we have been discussing—that is to say, the new Clause. In point of fact, all that we have had is five Amendments to one Lords Amendment. We have had more than a normal Parliamentary day on them. When one reflects on what is frequently done on a Parliamentary day, how the Second Reading of an important

  1349
  Bill is frequently taken in one day, how great debates on Imperial or foreign or colonial affairs are taken in one Parliamentary day, it is somewhat of a reflection that today we have dealt with only five Amendments to one Lords Amendment. But the Government realise, as I expect does almost everybody now in the Chamber that we sat very late last night and I think that we must take that into consideration. That is why I have moved this Motion.
  The House will remember that, on Thursday last, I announced the National Insurance Bill Second Reading for tomorrow. Fortunately, as far as I know, it is regarded as a non-contentious Measure—one more advance in our social services. It may be convenient if I now announce that these Lords Amendments will be put down as first Order tomorrow, and we shall hope to make good progress, but we will leave the National Insurance Bill, which is universally regarded as desirable, as the second Order.
  Mr. H. Morrison: This is an attempt at the emergence of the strong man again. Once before something like this happened, owing to incompetence or blundering on the part of the Government in regard to business, and they were revenged by altering the business for the next day. Now, the House is placed in this position on a Bill that is not really urgent. I have said before that, if the Government get it by the end of the Session, they will have done very well. If they get the other one as well, they will have done better. There is no hurry about this Bill; in fact, it would be a good thing if it was never passed at all.
  As a matter of fact, I am told by my hon. Friends, who have just done some rapid counting, that these figures of the Amendments that have been considered are not accurate. Some were taken together, and the total number of Amendments. I am told, is about 10. But let the House remember what this Clause is. Consider the size of the Clause. It runs into pages, it is bigger than quite a number of Bills, and it raises quite a lot of important issues of public policy. Moreover, not only is it the case that it raises vitally important issues of public policy, but we have to spend time —we are driven to spend time—in order to get clear explanations of what the
  1350
  Clause means and what the effect of the Amendments would be. Consequently, a lot of the time that has been spent has been lost owing to the ineptitude of the Government themselves.
  I say again that there is and has been no question, on this Bill or on the Lords Amendments, of the Opposition obstructing or being silly, and I say that in absolute good faith and earnestness. All we have been doing is our public duty, and, whatever the Leader of the House may do, however he may be egged on by the Prime Minister—he is looking not quite sure whether to look cross or cheeky; I am not sure which it is—it is no good the Leader of the House thinking that, by playing about with the business of the House, which is what he is doing at the moment, he is thereby going to divert the Opposition from discharging their public duty by proper examination of this Bill.
  That is all we are doing in our Amendments to their Lordships Amendments and in the speeches made from this side of the House; and, by the way, there has been a certain number from the other side. It is true that there are signs of fatigue today on the part of hon. Members, but some made their contributions, as it is their right and duty to do. Merely because we have done this and carried out our public duty by examining these Lords Amendments and making proposals for Amendments to them, the Leader of the House says, "I will punish you, and give you business tomorrow that you did not anticipate; I will upset the arrangements you have made for the day"— and all because we are doing our duty.
  As reported to me by my hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the Government Chief Whip said this—and it was a foolish comment to make—as reported in the "Beckenham Journal," an influential local newspaper in his constituency, which is a neighbouring one to mine. I have often driven through it and thought of the Chief Whip as I went through. I am bound to say, having looked at considerable parts of his constituency, that I can understand what happens and how it is that he gets returned to Parliament. Nevertheless, the time marches on and some day he will be moved.
  On 27th March, the "Beckenham Journal" quoted the Government Chief

  1351
  Whip. It is a quotation from a Whip who is whining that the Opposition are doing their job with too great energy. It reads:
  " The Socialists say they will do that—"
  that is, reverse previous legislation
  "—with iron and steel and transport, but, personally, I very much doubt if they will, particularly after the quietness with which they have allowed these Bills to go through."
  I never knew what was the origin of the tradition of silence among Whips, but I begin to suspect it when the Chief Whip says things of that sort. The chickens are beginning to come home to roost. It is the beginning of the shape of things to come. Conservatives are not good at that, because they want to make things go backwards or stand still.
  As a mere method of spite they are now saying to themselves, "No doubt Members of the Labour Party have made certain arrangements on the assumption that tomorrow there will be the National Insurance Bill which will finish by 10 p.m., and it is a day upon which various arrangements can be made." I imagine it is a day, too, upon which various arrangements among Conservatives have been made. But the Government are merely being obstinate and sticky, and saying, "We have not got these Lords Amendments as quickly as we thought, so we are going to stick it, stick it, and stick it until we get them through." There is nothing clever or virtuous about that. I say that a Government which gratuitously, at 12.30 a.m., tells the House that on this day's Sitting they are going to turn the proceedings inside out and take totally different business merely to be spiteful is a childish Government.
  What will the Government do? Is it their intention to go right through to tomorrow night? If they do, we shall be there. Is it their intention to go right through Private Members' time on Friday and take it away from Private Members of the House? We ought to know. Are they going through until 4 p.m. on Friday? If so, are they sure they will get all the Lords Amendments? In each case, the Government has merely inconvenienced hon. Members on both sides of the House later today and has possibly stolen Private Members' time on Friday which is sacred to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was taken during the war."]
  1352
  Yes, Private Members' time was taken during the war, and, I admit, held back during part of the time of the Labour Government, but it was restored by the Labour Government. Are the Government intending to take it away?
  12.45 a.m.
  This is a petty thing to do. It is mere vindictiveness. The Government have not got the Lords Amendments settled, but they might have known they would not have got them settled. Why? We had a guillotined Bill. The Guillotine was thrown at us without any consultation. We were treated with contempt. It was an unfair Guillotine. The consequence of the Guillotine is that the Lords Amendments are heavy and important and responsible. It was inevitable that when they came to us they would take time, and they have, simply because we have done our public duty. I protest very strongly against this action, which, as I say, is spiteful, vindictive and petty.
  After consultation with our Chief Whip I think it right to inform the House of what indeed the House scarcely needs informing about. It is obvious that the pairs which were made on the basis of a very different type of business for tomorrow cannot operate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] To be on the safe side, in case of eventualities, they cannot be adhered to on Friday either. I thought it courteous and right to inform the House of the decision of our Whips' Department. I protest against this action of the Government, spiteful and petty as it is, and I hope that the Government may yet live to regret it.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The right hon. Gentleman is a master of the art of trying to have it all ways at once. I must confess to the House that I have not sat through all these debates. I have a lot of other things to attend to. However, I have very carefully followed the course of this important Bill, and I am bound to say that I understood, before the Recess, before the lamentable events which occurred a little while ago, that the course of business which would have led to the conclusion of this Bill and of the Lords Amendments was practically accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am only saying what I understood was the case.
  Mr. H. Morrison Mr. H. Morrison rose—
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just been speaking. I must be allowed to say what I thought was the general impression on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All this shouting now has no resemblance to the quiescence—the quietude, I think was the word—which was shown by the Opposition when the business was laid out and this matter was thought to be settled. That is one chapter of the story.
  Then an interlude occurred. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a speech made by the Chief Whip in his constituency. We all have constituencies. He made a speech in which he said how quietly this great Transport Bill had gone through. That, I think, was an obvious comment and a general conclusion. I understand from various sources that hon. Members opposite and the leaders of the party, whoever they may be and whichever seem to show the winning colours at any particular part of the race, received very strong reproaches from their constituents, "Why are you not fighting this Tory Bill better?" The result has been that they have lashed up their fury, their pretended fury—all false, sham [Interruption]—all rubbish [Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite cannot do anything but yell. Let them have a really good yell if they want one.
  All I am saying is that the Leaders of the Socialist Party have been forced by the pressure of their constituents to think again and to buck up in opposing the Transport Bill; and that is what we are witnessing now and what we are undergoing now. We are not afraid. We have every intention of carrying this Measure, although we have been subjected, in my opinion, to an altogether dishonest and even disgraceful bit of obstruction over the Lords Amendments.
  We have every intention of carrying this Bill through. It was thought that it would be for the convenience of the House, having had to sit so late last night, if hon. Members could disperse early tonight. I was told that it made a difference to many hon. Members opposite in catching their trains. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have all gone."] That was one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the Adjournment. Under great provocation, in face of many insults, we
  1354
  try to consider with good feeling the reasonable convenience of the House. And what is the result? The result is this speech of the right hon. Gentleman, this exhibition, founded on humbug, ending as it did—[Interruption]—I do not mind being shouted down. Hon. Members opposite can yell themselves hoarse and get their friends to shout much louder, too—and ending as it did, in futility.
  The necessary arrangements must be made in the Government business. I gather that the Opposition repudiate all the honourable contracts they have entered into about pairs—although three Ministers have gone to Paris on public duty, on quite definite assurances. We are not in the least disheartened or discouraged by this conduct. It is only hon. Members opposite who suffer in public reputation.
  I will make it perfectly plain that as far as the Government are concerned we have every intention of carrying this Bill into law, and dealing with the Lords Amendments before this week is out. [Interruption.] I have rarely seen an Opposition making such a violent and insincere obstruction and pretence against the good feeling of the House as this performance has presented, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman who, even at this last moment, presented himself as a man having a grievance, that we shall show him before the week is out on which side the grievance lies.
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not know what was the purpose of the Prime Minister's intervention, except perhaps to dispirit his already dispirited followers. Many of them will find no particular joy in having to sit on Thursday and Friday, perhaps even then not to see the work concluded. The Prime Minister will do well to examine the work that lies before us before making a statement that in any case the Government intends to finish the Lords Amendments by Friday night.
  The Prime Minister: I said by the end of this week.
  Mr. Callaghan: A Saturday Sitting will be an extremely novel experience for a great many of us. I will not say that it will be viewed with apprehension, because I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be with us or not, but if he is, whatever quiet features distinguish

  1355
  the proceedings he can be calculated to raise the temperature any time he gets to his feet. I am sure we would not have had a quiet time if he had been present during our debates.
  The Prime Minister does not make the noise; he is the catalyst. He is the man who sets the whole thing off. He is the match to the tinder, and he knows his accomplishment. This is very poor thanks for the constructive efforts made by the Opposition throughout the whole of the Transport Bill, to which the Minister paid tribute during the Third Reading, saying that we had eschewed obstruction in order to try, in the limited time given to us, to put forward Amendments which were constructive and would improve the Bill.
  I would remind the Prime Minister that the Guillotine was imposed on this Bill, the first Measure brought in by this Government, without any consultation with the Opposition, and after indications from us that we had no intention of repeating the miserable performances of the Conservative Party when in opposition on the Gas Bill and similar Measures brought in during the life-time of the Labour Government. The Prime Minister says that honourable contracts in relation to pairs were repudiated. It is my information that pairs were offered to Ministers going to Paris. If that is dispute, then I have no doubt—
  The Prime Minister: Does that offer hold or not?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is still prepared to carry out the pairs originally arranged for on the basis agreed.
  The Prime Minister: What do you mean by that?
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: I understand that names have been offered to the Patronage Secretary—and those names have, I think, been accepted as live pairs—for the Ministers who have gone to Paris. I do not know to what the Prime Minister was referring when he said that we had broken our contract.
  The Prime Minister: I was referring to this one special point.
  Mr. F. Beswick: Apologise.
  The Prime Minister: On the contrary, but I am very glad to know that the pairs arranged for the three Ministers who have gone to Paris will be respected in a bona fide manner. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has not referred at all to the other pairs.
  Mr. Callaghan: I was not aware, when the Prime Minister referred to the repudiation of honourable contracts, that he was referring to other instances. If he is referring to the general breaking of pairs, then, clearly, he must hold the Leader of the House responsible for altering the business for to-morrow. If that is not a repudiation of a contract entered into by the Leader of the House concerning the business of the House, I do not know what is. That is where the initiative lies.
  No undertaking was given or any understanding entered into with anybody on the Government side about the consideration of these Lords Amendments. I do not know whether the Prime Minister intended to infer that there had been some such arrangements, but, if he did, let me repudiate it at once. We will continue to examine this Bill with the best means at our disposal, and continue to apply our minds to these Lords Amendments.
  I would ask the Prime Minister, in order to expedite the business, to try to get the Attorney-General, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to agree on their interpretation of the Lords Amendments so that we do not have to spend too much time in clearing up the confusion that has existed all day on the Government Front Bench. We shall go on doing our duty, and we hope that the Prime Minister will be here to do his.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I have no wish to exacerbate the feelings which have already been manifested, but I want to make a suggestion. It is that, instead of discussing the Transport Bill again tomorrow and on Friday—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Saturday and Sunday."]—we should postpone further discussion on it until after the Whitsun Recess.
  We shall shortly be adjourning for the Whitsun Recess, and I understand that immediately after we return the House will again adjourn for a day or so in order that hon. Members may attend the Naval Review. I suggest that further

  1357
  discussion of this Bill should be left to those of us who will not be attending the Naval Review, and I can assure the Prime Minister that in the safe hands of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself it will not come to any harm.
  I want to suggest that to keep us here probably tomorrow night as we were last night and then have a long Recess at Whitsun and a short Recess again for the Naval Review is a shocking thing. I would much rather hon. Members, on 15th and 16th June, spent their time discussing this Bill than going to Spithead at the expense of the taxpayers when they are always groaning and moaning about keeping down Government expenditure. I
  suggest that those two days, which are to be spent in the Channel area, would be better devoted to this Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to accede to our request.
  Mr. H. Morrison: In the circumstances and to register our protest we shall divide the House on this Motion. This is not because we wish the Sitting to continue, but because we must register our protest against conduct which we consider inimical to the good name and good temper of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 205.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES

  [1.6 a.m.

  Aitken, W.T.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Fell, A.

  Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Finlay, Graeme

  Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Fort, R.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Foster, John

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Barber, Anthony

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Galbrairth, T. G. O. (Hillhead)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Beamish, Major Tufton

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Birch, Nigel

  Cower, H. R.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Black, C. W.

  Grdley, Sir Arnold

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Grimond, J.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Braine, B. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Marlowe. A. A. H.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hay, John

  Marples, A. E.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Heath, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Maudling, R.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mellor, Sir John

  Channon, H.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Cole, Norman

  Hope, Lord John

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Odey, G. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Osborne, C.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Partridge, E.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Kaberry, D.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Donner, P. W.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Turton, R. H.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Pries, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Speir, R. M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Redmayne, M.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Walker-Smith, O. C.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Summers, G. S.

  Water-house, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wellwood, W.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Russell, R. S.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wills, G.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Shepherd, William

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Tilney, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Albu, A. H.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mort, D. L.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gooch, E. G.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Bartley, P.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, T.

  Bence, C. R.

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  Benson, G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Padley, W. E.

  Beswick, F.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Paget, R. T.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Boardman, H.

  Hannan, W.

  Pearson, A.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Peart, T. F.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bowles, F. G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Porter, G.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Holman, P.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Rankin, John

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Carmichael, J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Chapman, W. O.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Collick, P. H.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Ross, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Short, E. W.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Keenan, W.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Snow, J. W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dodds, N. N.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Donnelly, D. L.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Edelman, M.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swingler, G. T.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomson. George (Dundee, E.)

  Finch, H. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thornton, E. (Farnworth)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Monslow, W.

  Timmons, J.

  Follick, M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Tomney, F.

  Foot, M. M.

  Marley, R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  1360

  1361

  Usborne, H. C.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Wallace, H. W

  Wigg, George

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M, (Bradford,S)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C A. B.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Wast, D. G.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Yates, V, F.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Royle and Mr. John Taylor.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords Amendments to be further considered this day.

  APPEAL TRIBUNALS (BLIND PERSONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr Kaberry.]
  1.15 a.m.
  Mr. F. Beswick: The Act for which the Ministry of National Insurance is responsible provides for tribunals to which persons refused insurance or assistance benefit can appeal. These tribunals are composed of three persons with public spirit and with appropriate qualifications.
  On 9th February, in answer to a Question of mine, the Minister of National Insurance said:
  "Following a recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace (1946–48), it was decided not to appoint blind persons to these Tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 6.]
  I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the implication of this unfair, hurtful and unnecessary ban. Let me say at once that I make no party criticism here, because the original decision was taken in good faith by predecessors of the present Minister, and no doubt maintained in equally good faith by him.
  My case is that the original decision to exclude from this field of public service a category of fellow citizens was unfair and hurtful to those excluded, and not helpful to society as a whole. I believe it to have been conceived in the cloistered atmosphere of a Government Department in an excessively legalistic spirit, and without giving full weight to warmer human considerations, and without a proper assessment of public opinion. The general public do not know of this ban upon a section of their fellows, and I hope that this Adjournment debate will inform some of them, and that they will be led to protest.
  1362
  The justification for this discrimination rests, according to the Minister's reply, upon one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But no mention at all was made in that Report of appeals tribunals. Indeed, these tribunals were not even constituted when the Commission heard evidence. Moreover, it is clear from their Report that the particular recommendation about the election of justices was made only with reluctance, and after weighing considerations for and against, which were very evenly balanced.
  The Report states that the Commission came down on the side of a ban because
  "Finally, we think that litigants and especially defendants whose reputation and whole future is at stake could not be expected to feel confidence that the value of evidence could clearly be appraised by a justice who has not had the advantage of seeing the witnesses."
  Important as are the matters which come before the appeal tribunals, it cannot be said that to the same extent they settle the "reputation and whole future" of the appellant who appears before them.
  It is, of course, impossible to say what recommendation might have been made by the Royal Commission had appeals tribunals been included within their terms of reference, but it is completely wrong to claim that there is any evidence that they would have recommended the ban against blind persons being extended to this other sphere of public service.
  I agree that defendants before a bench or appellants before a tribunal should have complete confidence in those who have to assess evidence and give judgments, but there is no evidence at all that any appellant before a tribunal has lacked confidence in the tribunal of three because one happened to be sightless. There is, however, much evidence that thousands of ordinary men and women have great confidence in the judgment and advice of individual blind persons.
  I suppose I have no more and no less blind within my own constituency than is

  1363
  the case in other areas of the country, but it so happens that there are in the Uxbridge division two individual blind persons who are both extremely active in public service. Each is elected to his respective local authority by votes which put him at the top of the poll, and above sighted colleagues of the same political persuasion. To each of these individuals hundreds of people go during the course of a year for guidance and advice.
  It seems to me not only unjust, but completely and absolutely untenable to suggest that appellants appearing before these people would not have confidence in their judgment, and I give these, of course, only as examples.
  It is said that a person must be able to observe the demeanour of a witness before assessing his reliability. I do not believe that to be true. Indeed, it is sometimes the case that the demeanour of a witness might very well enable him to get away with untruthful evidence. In any case, I think it can be established that a blind person develops other senses to such a degree that lack of sight is more than compensated.
  Moreover, I understand that it is not essential for an appellant to appear before these tribunals in person. I even have a case in which an appellant was represented by a blind person, who, incidentally, won the case. If representation is permitted then clearly it cannot be held that it is of overwhelming importance for the demeanour of an appellant to be observed and analysed.
  It is also argued that a blind person is at a disadvantage in being unable to read the relevant papers. Certainly, if the papers are put before such a person at the last moment he or she would be at a disadvantage, but so indeed would a sighted person. The difficulty of reading and digesting papers is presented to blind persons in connection with other work—on local authorities for example, or even in this House. But, clearly, a blind person is able to know and assimilate the contents of written documents. Indeed, the remarkable thing is that, un-distracted by extraneous affairs, often a blind person more completely assimilates documents than does a sighted colleague.
  There is just one final ground on which I plead with the Minister to reconsider this ban. Discrimination against human
  1364
  beings on account of characteristics over which they have no control is one of the cruellest and most frustrating factors in human affairs.
  We have known such discrimination because of the colour of an individual's skin or because of the nature of his religion. We have had discrimination— and it was not the least cruel—because individuals had not been to particular schools or had not received a certain type of education. Gradually, through the years—and it is greatly to our credit —we have been eliminating these bans and bars from our social life.
  But here, in this discrimination against blind persons, we are building up another ban, another bar against individual human beings on account of a characteristic for which they have no responsibility whatsoever. I do not believe that the depth of feeling in this matter was appreciated in the Government Department in which this ban was originally decided upon.
  Maybe there are not many sightless persons who will seek to serve on these tribunals even if the ban is lifted. But the fact that there is a complete and absolute bar against even a few individuals, who are otherwise highly qualified, is an injustice and a wound to the whole of the blind community.
  It may well be that in appointing an individual blind person their other qualifications would need to be especially high. I do not think that the blind community would quarrel with that. What is completely wrong is that, irrespective of the character, judgment and high qualities of individual persons they are now told that they cannot serve if they happen to have lost their sight.
  There is the additional fear that now that the ban has been extended beyond the justices of the peace to whom it was originally confined, it might well be, in the future, extended still further to cover, for example, service upon local authorities or even service in this House. Most of the arguments advanced in support of the original ban can be stretched to cover these other activities.
  I do, therefore, ask the Minister, in so far as he has power to give the assurance, to make it clear that no such extension is even contemplated by Her Majesty's present Government, and that

  1365
  the contributions of blind persons in public life generally are so highly prized that it would be unthinkable that the ban should be extended further. I ask him again to give an undertaking that he will reconsider, with the utmost care and sympathy, in the light of this debate, the particular ban against some of our fellows, serving equally with the rest of us, upon these Appeal Tribunals.
  1.25 a.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues, to add a word to the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I have been putting down Questions for a considerable time about the employment of blind persons, and there is no doubt that many of them, despite their brilliance and undoubted ability, suffer great handicaps, and I know that the blind people of Scotland feel very keenly about this ban. What we have said to them is: "We are going to penalise you because you are sightless," and they feel it very much indeed.
  This is not a party political matter. We must all accept our share of the responsibility for the decision that was made when the Act was introduced, but I think the time has now come for a change to be made, and I want, on behalf of the blind people, to make an earnest appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary at least to say something that will give hope to and help to remove from the blind people of this country what they feel to be an undeserved slight.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not argue that blind people are not capable of doing this work. We know perfectly well that some of them are, but it may be in his mind that members of the public who come before the tribunals may feel that they were handicapped. The hon. Gentleman may be concerned, in the common phrase, to see that not only justice is done but that it should be seen to be done. I would urge him to consider that there might have been, at the time when the administration of National Insurance was expanding a great deal, doubts about the public reaction to the presence of blind people on bodies such as these, but I am inclined to think that, by now, the public are beginning to understand what marvellous
  1366
  mastery over life and over civic duties blind people have attained.
  I do not believe that today there would be, except on the part of an unreasoning few, any feeling that a tribunal was not doing its work properly because a sightless person was a member, and I believe that, if there is any such feeling, what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has said tonight will help to dispel it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to the plea which he has expressed.
  1.29 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I think it is better that I should intervene at this stage to deal with the important case that has been put by the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart). I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has raised it now, because he was a distinguished Member of the preceding Government, and what he is asking me to do tonight is to reverse the decision reached by his colleague the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill).
  In matters of appointments to judicial tribunals it is, in our view, very important that there should be continuity between succeeding Governments. If we had the situation in which one Government turned certain people off the tribunals, for sound or unsound reasons, another Government reversed the decision and a later one restored it, it would make the position unstable. As I see it, it would be improper for us not to follow the policy laid down by our predecessors in this matter unless a very strong case had been made out for changing that policy.
  I do not believe that case has been made out. The hon. Member for Uxbridge quoted from the Royal Commission presided over by a very eminent judge of the High Court, as he was then, and which had upon it able men from all parties and all occupations, representing all sections of the public. That Royal Commission, in paragraph 135 of its Report, said:
  "The question we have had to ask ourselves is whether the duties of a justice can be carried out with satisfaction to himself and to the public by a blind man."

  1367
  It went on to state the three considerations which had weighed with the Commission:
  "First, it is necessary, if a magistrate is to be deemed capable of fulfilling all the functions of his office, that he should be able to read documents and examine plans. If he has not this ability, he is necessarily debarred not only from attesting documents, but (what is much more important) from forming an independent opinion, in the course of a trial, based on the examination of plans and documents or on a comparison of handwriting.
  Secondly, great importance is always attached in our courts to the observation of a witness's demeanour by those who act as judges of facts. In order that this observation should be wholly reliable it seems to us that it must depend on sight as well as hearing.
  Finally, we think that litigants, and especially defendants, whose reputation and whole future are sometimes at stake, could not be expected to feel confident that the value of the evidence for and against them would be correctly appraised by a justice who had not the advantage of seeing the witnesses. These considerations compel us to say that no person who is blind ought to be appointed a justice, or, if he is already a justice, ought to continue to sit."
  I purposely read that out because that is a very strong expression of opinion, a decided expression of opinion. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made some remarks which might have led some people to think there had been a degree of indecision in that Report by the Royal Commission. From the paragraphs I have read out it is perfectly clear. Can we distinguish the position of the justice of the peace from that of the members of the National Insurance local appeal tribunals and of the appeals tribunals appointed by the National Assistance Board? That is what the hon. Member is asking us to do. I imagine that he is not asking us tonight not to follow that Royal Commission's recommendations on justices. Clearly, it would be improper for me to comment upon that possibility and I do not believe it is seriously argued in the House.
  These local appeal tribunals, when dealing with matters of industrial injuries, are dealing with problems similar to those which, prior to the passing of the Act which stands to the honour of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), were decided on questions of fact by county court judges—a far more important tribunal than that of a magistrates' court. These tribunals have to
  1368
  deal with extremely difficult questions of fact, as well as difficult questions of law.
  In a second category of cases, these local tribunals are having to deal with claims for retirement pensions where it is of the utmost value to observe the demeanour of the witnesses and to hear them tell their stories on question of fact. I rather thought that the hon. Member for Uxbridge, at Question time recently, suggested that these appeal tribunals were not of the same importance as magistrates' courts. I would remind him that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the greatest financial penalty that can be imposed by a magistrates' court is a fine of £500, whereas in these cases of retirement pension, on which way the decision goes rests whether men or women shall have pensions that have an actuarial value of more than £1,500. For these reasons the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, felt that she could not distinguish the case from that put by the Royal Commission.
  As I see it, the strength of the Royal Commission's case was really this: that there was a danger, in their view, that those who appeared before the tribunal at which questions of fact were judged might feel that they did not have full consideration of their case if a member of the tribunal was totally incapacitated either by blindness or by deafness. That was the view of the Royal Commission, and bearing in mind those words that were quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, East, words ascribed to Lord Ellenborough and used by Lord Hewart, "It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done," in my right hon. Friend's view we must follow in this matter the ruling laid down by the right hon. Lady.
  There was a point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge made which I should like to correct. He stressed that often the appellant did not appear. Let me remind the House that the appellant in all these cases has the right to appear, at all hearings of the tribunals.
  Mr. Beswick: That is not essential.
  Mr. Turton: It is not essential, but he has the right to appear. There was another point the hon. Gentleman made

  1369
  that was a little dangerous. He said that there were three members of the tribunal and the blind person would be only one. Frequently, however, a tribunal is formed by two members, and can, by agreement between the parties, be formed by a single member. I want to correct what may be a false impression created by what the hon. Gentleman said.
  I wish no unfortunate impression to be created by this debate or by the facts I have had to give to the House. I appreciate, as much as any of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, the great work blind men and women can do and do do in the discharge of their duties to the community. When it is a question of appointing blind people to bodies with functions that are advisory and not judicial in character quite different considerations apply. It is a fact that blind people have often qualities which are particularly valuable in advisory posts.
  Blindness is not a bar to appointment to local advisory committees of my Ministry, and the chairman of one of the local advisory committees, whose area actually includes, I believe, part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Uxibridge, is a blind person, of first-rate ability.
  Mr. Beswick: Responsible for nominating people to those tribunals.
  Mr. Turton: The responsibility for choosing members of these tribunals rests in the hands of the Minister, who frequently takes advice from the Lord Chancellor's office. The Ministry has no intention of extending the ban beyond its present limits. If the interests represented on the local advisory committees —the employers' associations, the trade unions, the trades council federations, local authorities and other nominating bodies—think fit to nominate more blind people the next time the committees are constituted, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider them.
  I hope that the hon. Member will realise the reasons which have led my right hon. Friend to follow the decision of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, and I hope that blind people throughout the country will realise that the service which they have given to the nation, and will continue to give, is highly valued by every member of this Government and, I am sure, by all hon. Members.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Two o'Clock, a.m.

MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Tea (Price)
  Tea (Price)
  Fertile Eggs (Preservation)
  Fertile Eggs (Preservation)
  Pork Butchers (Mutton Allocations)
  Pork Butchers (Mutton Allocations)
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Deportations, Northern Rhodesia
  Deportations, Northern Rhodesia
  Citizens' Rights
  Citizens' Rights
KENYA
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial Report)
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial Report)
  Africans (Meetings)
  Africans (Meetings)
MALAYA
  Tin and Rubber Prices
  Tin and Rubber Prices
  Government Employees (Whitley Councils)
  Government Employees (Whitley Councils)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  War Damage Compensation, Far East
  War Damage Compensation, Far East
  Emigrants to the United Kingdom
  Emigrants to the United Kingdom
  CYPRUS (CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRAR'S DUTIES)
  CYPRUS (CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRAR'S DUTIES)
POST OFFICE
  Letters (Delivery)
  Letters (Delivery)
  Television Test Card
  Television Test Card
  GERMAN ARMED FORCES (SOVIET ZONE)
  GERMAN ARMED FORCES (SOVIET ZONE)
SCOTLAND
  National Coal Board (Blown-Down Timber)
  National Coal Board (Blown-Down Timber)
  Exports
  Exports
  METROPOLITAN AND CITY POLICE (AMALGAMATION)
  METROPOLITAN AND CITY POLICE (AMALGAMATION)
  AIRMEN (RELEASE)
  AIRMEN (RELEASE)
  MEDICAL SERVICES (LEGAL AID PROCEEDINGS)
  MEDICAL SERVICES (LEGAL AID PROCEEDINGS)
  WATERCOURSES, FLOODED AREAS (CLEARANCE GRANT)
  WATERCOURSES, FLOODED AREAS (CLEARANCE GRANT)
  GARAGES, HOVE (REPAIR LICENCE)
  GARAGES, HOVE (REPAIR LICENCE)
  INCOME TAX (WELSH EXPLANATORY LEAFLETS)
  INCOME TAX (WELSH EXPLANATORY LEAFLETS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl Kitchener—Took the Oath.

BRITISH HOSPITAL IN PARIS
2.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm a report appearing in the Press of 18th March that the British hospital for British residents, in Paris, is closing down owing to the refusal of the Treasury to grant facilities to Sir Bernard Docker to provide the money required for its continuance.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is, No. As a matter of strict accuracy, the report of the statement by Sir Bernard and Lady Docker published in The Times of March 18 last alleged not refusal but delay on the part of the Treasury as the ground for withdrawing their offer.
The position is that the Hertford Hospital was closed to patients last year. At that time the difference between regular income and expenditure which had to be met by donations or out of capital had risen from £15,000 in 1948 to £26,000 in 1951, and out of a normal complement of 50 to 60 beds, only an average of between 21 and 25 were occupied. Last autumn the Charity Commissioners prepared a scheme whereby £30,000 was to be raised from endow-merits for the modernisation of the Hospital, which was founded in 1871. At the same time, Sir Bernard and Lady Docker offered a sum of £30,000, not towards the support of the existing Hospital but for the construction of a new
1074
"Docker Wing" of ten beds for fully paying patients.
Although remittances for the continuance of British charitable works abroad are normally approved without difficulty, remittances for capital expenditure on new developments must obviously be carefully scrutinised; and one of the points upon which the Treasury would need to be satisfied is that the new works, either alone or in conjunction with existing works, will constitute a viable proposition. It was upon this aspect of the scheme that the Treasury felt obliged to obtain fuller information than had been received when Sir Bernard and Lady Docker's offer was withdrawn. I understand that at a meeting of the Hospital Committee on March 31, the Chairman was requested to work out a fresh scheme calculated to ensure the continued existence of the Hospital.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to consider sympathetically the remittance both of the capital sum needed for the cost of the new wing and of such future sums as would be required for maintenance of the Hospital as a whole, if he could receive satisfactory assurances that the Hospital's income from fees and donations would be adequate for its future needs.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the full explanation he has given me of the present state of affairs at the Hertford Hospital in Paris.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to say that here there is a strong case. I hope that the noble Marquess will realise that there is a certain element of prestige involved in this matter. This hospital has a long and most honourable tradition, and to my mind it would not be anything but a grave misfortune if the hospital had to close down through lack of funds. I gather that that, too, is the view of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I appreciate the point regarding prestige which the noble and learned Earl has raised and, as I have said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to consider the situation. At the same time, the noble Earl will realise (and I am not in any way prejudging the matter) that it is a serious question, which has to be

1075
considered: whether in the present conditions and with the decrease of the British population in Paris, there is a case to be made for viable hospital on these lines.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SHEFFIELD) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (HASTINGS AND EAST GRINSTEAD) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (IPSWICH, EYE AND SUDBURY AND WOOD-BRIDGE) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (PRESTON SOUTH AND SOUTH FYLDE) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (STOCKPORT SOUTH AND CHEADLE) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (THE HARTLEPOOLS, BISHOP AUCKLAND AND SEDGEFIELD) DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1953
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, these Draft Orders give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in their Report, submitted to the Secretary of State on January 23, 1953, under Section 2 (3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, and laid by him before Parliament in pursuance of subsection (5) of Section 2 of that Act. In accordance with the proviso to Section 3 (6), the Orders will not affect any Parliamentary Election until the next Election after they come into force. They are of a formal nature, I think, and with the permission of the House I will move them en bloc. Accordingly, I beg to move that the Draft
1076
Orders, reported from the Special Orders Committee on March 28 last, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Orders, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 28th of March last, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Motion that has just been moved, but as a member of the Special Orders Committee and a Member of your Lordships' House I think there is a statement that should be made before we give our approval to the Orders now before the House. When the Special Orders Committee meet and consider matters of this kind, they have before them, in addition to the Orders themselves, the Report of the Boundary Commission for England. On page 2 of the Report in this case, I found two small paragraphs which intrigued me. In these the Commission stated:
"Only one objection was received to our proposals"—
that is, in the localities concerned.
"It was represented to us that we should defer making any recommendations affecting the parliamentary boundaries of the constituencies affected by one borough extension until the next general review.
"We had already considered this matter when framing our provisional recommendations and after further consideration we see no reason to modify our proposals."
Noble Lords will remember that before becoming a Member of your Lordships' House I was professionally interested in subjects of this kind, and I was naturally inquisitive concerning the two paragraphs I have quoted from the Report. To which order was objection made; and upon what basis were the objections made? To my astonishment, the officer who attended the Committee on this occasion as a representative of the Home Office had not the information by him and could not give me the answer to either question.
This placed both myself and the Chairman of the Special Orders Committee in some difficulty. Normally, we can accept these Reports as being formal, so far as this House is concerned, and can give our assent without much trouble. The noble Lord who presides over the Committee suggested—and I willingly agreed—that we should pass the Orders in the normal way, and that the Ministry should send me later the information that

1077
I required. That placed me in some difficulty, as I realised afterwards, because the decision of the Special Orders Committee is given in accordance with a formula. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote the Committee's Report on these Orders. It was:
"That in their opinion the provisions of the Orders do not raise important questions of policy and principle:
"That the Orders are founded on precedent:
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Orders can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Orders."
The Committee were giving a decision in the dark, and it will be realised that there might be an occasion when serious trouble might ensue.
Since then I have had a first communication from the Home Office which informed me:
"That the objection mentioned in the Report of the Boundary Commission (which you asked about) related to Ipswich, and it was made by the Sudbury and Woodbridge Divisional Labour Party."
No information as to the arguments for the objection was given. I asked for further information, and later I was informed:
"That no reason was given by the Sudbury and Woodbridge Labour Party for their objection. They merely said that it was unnecessary to make recommendations for altering the boundaries now when the next general review was due to take place in 1955."
I say at once, that, had that information been before the Special Orders Committee at its recent meeting, I should have accepted the decision of the Boundary
1078
Commission without question, because I am in favour of these partial schemes of redistribution which arise out of the extension of borough boundaries, so that when general reviews take place we do not have those broad sweeping proposals of formal Redistribution Schemes. I thought it desirable that I should raise this matter in your Lordships' House to-day in order that the Ministers concerned, or their Ministries, may, in future, when placing Orders before the Special Orders Committee, be, quite sure that the appropriate information is available.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before we pass from this matter, although we have all been interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, I should have thought that this House would be unwise to take any action except a purely affirmative one on matters which particularly concern another place and not ourselves. It is true that we have the power not to approve one of these Orders, but I should have thought that was something we should be reluctant to do. This is purely a House of Commons matter, and I think that normally we should pass formally such Orders, which do not affect your Lordships' House any way but do affect the redistribution of seats in another place.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, by leave of the House may I say that I agree with what the noble Lord has just said? However, I would suggest to him, and to noble Lords generally, that even when a decision of this House has to be taken in a formal way we should at least know to what our formal decision commits us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 18:
Duty of Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to return iron and steel under-takings to private ownership
18.—(1) There shall be a body to be called the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Agency"), and it shall be the duty of the Agency to secure, by the exercise of their powers under this Act, the return to private ownership of the undertakings which on the appointed day are owned by subsidiaries of the Agency:
Provided that the Agency may discharge their duty under this section in such manner, and by such stages, and with such postponements of the sale of securities or other assets, as they may with the approval of the Treasury determine, and shall so discharge the said duty as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained from the disposal of assets is financially adequate, and pending the discharge of the said duty the Agency shall so exercise their powers as a holding company as to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries.
LORD WILMOT LORD WILMOT moved, in subsection (1) after "Agency"(where that word occurs a third time) to insert, "in consultation with the Board." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, standing in my name and that of my noble friends, goes to the heart of what we regard as one of the principal defects in the Bill. There is no great question of political procedure involved in this Amendment; it is directed to improving the machinery of operation. Your Lordships will be aware that Clause 18 is the clause which lays upon the Realisation Agency the duty of returning to private ownership the undertakings which are now the property of the Iron and Steel Corporation. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that, before taking specific action in discharge of this duty the Agency shall consult with the Board. Now it is the Board and not the Agency which has the responsibility for the supervision of the whole iron and steel industry and has
1080
within its keeping the welfare of the industry. It seems to us to be a very imperfect arrangement that this disposal Agency should proceed with its duty of selling off the undertakings completely out of touch with the Iron and Steel Board. Imagine, if one can, the extraordinary position of the directors of a corporation, or even the directors of a holding company or some agency responsible for the welfare of an undertaking, if, parallel with them, there is a liquidator in office disposing of units without any consultation. I ask the noble Marquess to consider this matter purely as one of operating machinery and commercial practice, and to agree that in exercising their function as the disposal agency this body should be in continuous contact and consultation with the Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 20, after ("Agency") insert ("in consultation with the Board").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am very sorry indeed to start off the afternoon's procedure on a discordant note. I do not really think the noble Lord would be anything but astonished if I agreed with him in the arguments which he put forward. He described this Amendment as an attempt to improve the machinery. As such an attempt I welcome it, but I must ask his forgiveness when I tell him that I think the only result of his attempt, if approved, would be to throw a most enormous spanner into the works. Wherever in disposing of the undertakings the Agency finds itself faced with two or more courses of action and the choice between them is likely to be of importance to the iron and steel industry, it will, as a matter of practice, consult the Board. This is not a cue, I must assure the noble Lord, for a loud and cheerful cry of, "Put it in the Bill." It is impossible to put in the Bill or in any Bill or in any arrangements, domestic or strategic, the occasions upon which two authorities, working to the same end, should always and inevitably or casually or sometimes, consult each other. The parallel I can make to the noble Lord, if he will accept it, is this. In all the Field Service Regulations concerning conduct of troops in the field, emphasis is laid upon the desire for the artillery—I choose this arm because it was my own—to work in close co-operation with

1081
the infantry. On certain specific occasions, for certain specific drills, it is laid down exactly what that co-operation is to be. On all other occasions it is taken for granted that there will be the closest co-operation necessary between the artillery and the infantry. So it is in this matter.
My Lords, in certain specific cases, where the Agency is proposing a merger or a regrouping of the undertakings, there is an obligation in the Bill for the Agency to consult the Board. That is in Clause 19 (7). That is a definite obligation. But to oblige the Agency to consult with the Board in the discharge of the whole of its primary duty would, I ask the noble Lord to believe me, be very wasteful of the time of the Agency and of the Board, and would be likely to delay, if not to frustrate, the return of the undertakings to private ownership. The noble Lord's Amendment as drafted would—if I have read it correctly—oblige the Agency to consult with the Board on every part of its programme for denationalisation. Surely it is not practicable to impose a specific obligation of consultation more widely than is already provided in the Bill. As I said just now, in the end it is not practicable by legislation to ensure that all consultation which is desirable shall take place. The Agency is responsible to and subject to directions from the Treasury and in the end it roust be the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the Board is consulted when it should be, and to answer in Parliament for any failure to do so.
These two authorities, the Board and the Agency, are both working in different ways but towards the same end—the efficient conduct of the iron and steel industry of this country. There will be many occasions on which it is obviously desirable for them to contact each other most closely, and as they will be reasonable men, carefully chosen and fully aware of their responsibilities, they will, of course, consult each other where consultation is desirable. Where consultation is essential and imperative, it is provided for in the Bill in Clause 19 (7), which I have just mentioned. Where consultation would be a waste of time, a matter of triviality, a matter of formality or a matter of delay, no consultation is necessary, and to put it in
1082
the Bill would, I submit to the noble Lord, be a work of supererogation. Therefore, I hope he will agree with me that consultation wherever it is wanted will take place, and that universal consultation, even though not necessary, should not be provided for in the Bill. For those reasons I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
2.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I should have understood the noble Lord's answer much more clearly if the Bill did not already provide for consultation in certain circumstances. What the noble Lord is saying is that there shall be consultation in the circumstances set out in subsection (7) of Clause 19—that is, where there is a possibility of grouping or re-grouping of the undertakings, and so on—and that in other cases there will be consultation wherever desirable. In spite of the noble Lord's reluctance to "put it in the Bill," I still say that some words ought to go in the Bill; because if there is in the Bill a provision that there shall be consultation in certain circumstances, and no words at all regarding other circumstances, there is the implication that the Agency has its instructions: these are the circumstances in which there shall be consultation, and as to the rest there need not be. I should have thought that the insertion somewhere of some words saying "without prejudice to consultation in other cases where it is thought desirable" might be appropriate.
I know that this Amendment may be a little more sweeping than is necessary in requiring consultation in all cases and I think the noble Lord has made his case in that respect, but there is a range of cases, as the noble Lord said, where consultation would be desirable; and I suggest that it is undesirable to have almost a clear indication in the Bill that consultation shall take place only in certain specific circumstances and in no others. The noble Lord as a lawyer is, of course, aware of the legal principle on this subject—that if you include one thing in a Bill (I am not going to quote the Latin) you automatically exclude others, and this may have that effect. I would therefore strongly urge on the Government to look at this point and see whether some words might not go in to indicate that while consultation must take place

1083
in the circumstances set out in this subsection, that is without prejudice to its taking place in other circumstances.
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support this Amendment, for one particular reason. We have these two bodies, the Agency and the Board, and it seems to me that the Agency is charged with rather narrower responsibilities—not less important but rather narrower—than those of the Board. It will tend for that reason to have a rather narrower outlook. It may well happen that the Agency will go ahead with some particular transaction and it may go ahead with that transaction without telling the Board, because in all good faith it did not seethe repercussions of what it was about to do. The Board, knowing practically everything, may have good reason for objecting to the transaction, although the Agency may not see the bearings of the matter and may accordingly fail to consult the Board. I think we have to be very careful in this matter and not have "two kings of Brentford." It seems to me that that possibility does exist unless provision is made for the fullest co-operation and consultation between these two bodies.
LORD STRABOLGI: I suggest that in practice, if everything goes harmoniously, as we all hope it will, the Agency will in all important matters, consult the Board. I think that that, in effect, was said by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government just now. But suppose everything does not go harmoniously. That has been so sometimes. There has been friction: I can remember that even in war time two Government Departments were fighting each other much harder than they were fighting the enemy. There might well be friction—
LORD MANCROFT: Consultation would not solve that problem.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, but it would put some responsibility on the Agency not to act contrary to the wishes of the Board. We should prepare for that. After all, the Board has the responsibility for carrying on that part of the industry which has not been sold back to private interests, and I should have thought it essential that they should know how sales were going and how any important negotiations were getting on.
LORD MANCROFT: They certainly will know.
LORD STRABOLGI: In that case, why not accept our Amendment? I am not wedded to the particular words, which may cause some indignation among noble Lords opposite, but why not accept the principle of the Amendment?
LORD CHORLEY: I suggest that the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government has himself proved the necessity for some words of this kind. He made it clear that it would be essential that in a large number of cases consultation should take place, and said that because it was essential it would follow automatically. But time after time that argument has been put up in this House, and rejected. If it is essential that there should be consultation, then surely it should be in the Bill itself. It may well be that there are a number of cases where consultation is not only not necessary, but positively undesirable; but I should have thought that the skilled draftsman who works for the Government on Bills of this kind would have been able to find a form of words which could cover the cases, leaving out the unessential ones and putting in those which are essential. I hope the Government will take this point away and look at it again.
LORD SALTOUN: I think that noble Lords on the other side are making a mountain out of a molehill. Surely we can be perfectly certain that sensible people will consult where it is necessary. It would therefore be a great mistake to put it in definite words in the Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Perhaps I might say just one word on this question. It seems to me that even since the beginning of this very brief debate, the Opposition have entirely changed their position. Originally there was to be always consultation with the Board. Now they say, "Well, perhaps not always: perhaps consultation with the Board sometimes—consultation with the Board when appropriate," and so on. That is a different matter from the original proposition they put before us. And indeed, as my noble friend pointed out, that is already covered. What one does not want in

1085
setting up this new machinery is to make legislation elaborate, clumsy, cumbersome, and tied up with all sorts of provisions put in by Parliament to cover every conceivable circumstance—as if the people who are going to carry out the work are half-witted idiots and not to be depended upon at all to do the appropriate thing themselves.
Even supposing Parliament does not trust the Agency—and if you are setting up a high-powered Agency you must give it a certain amount of confidence—the Agency, as we know, is to be responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and be subject to the Treasury's direction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible to Parliament and if the Agency fell short of its obligations in this matter he could be challenged in Parliament. For these reasons I urge the Opposition not to press this Amendment. It would no doubt be an attractive pursuit for the Parliamentary draftsman to build up an immensely elaborate structure covering every conceivable eventuality. But in fact what is wanted can be done; and unless the Agency is a very foolish body indeed—which it will not be—it will be done. I feel sure it would be best to leave matters to its good sense.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I wish I could feel the matter was as simple as that, but when one examines the practical bearings I do not think it comes out quite that way. There are two bodies, and they have been made responsible to two separate Ministers. One is appointed by the Minister of Supply and presumably will be in close touch with the Ministry of Supply. The other is a purely Treasury body concerned with the sale of assets. It is a very interesting thing, in view of what the noble Marquess says, that in the next paragraph the Agency is specifically enjoined to consult with the Treasury. That is not left to the good sense of the Agency; it is put in the Bill. If it is necessary to do that, it is no less necessary to put in the Bill the requirement to consult the Board. Imagine the Board making these estimates and forecasts and plans after receiving the information which we dealt with yesterday, and then suddenly finding that this other body has disposed of a large part of the productive mechanism of one of the units. The Agency goes to the Treasury and
1086
consults with them, who are its masters, or at any rate appointees, about the price, about postponement, about all these other financial questions that it is required to do; but it is not required to go to the Board that is responsible for the welfare of the industry and say: "Shall we sell the rolling mills at X, or shall we integrate them with the furnaces at Y?"These are problems of organisation and future management which are vitally concerned with the pattern of disposal and upon which the future build-up of the industry will depend.
As regards this body, this Agency appointed by the Treasury, once this Bill has become law and will no further be discussed in this House or in another place, it becomes the Agency's "Bible." The Agency's duties are laid down in the Act. It is required to keep hand in hand with the Treasury, but only occasionally, when it thinks right, will it consult with the Board. The most likely thing to happen is that it will become—and I speak from some experience in these matters—a Treasury Agency, solely concerned with realisation, and that it will have little day-to-day contact with the actual industry as a breathing, living, developing thing. I should have thought that the Government, if they wanted to make this work harmoniously, if they wanted here to provide for the long-term future of the industry, would be wise to see to it that there is this linkage between those who are responsible for the life of the thing and those who have the liquidators' task to perform.
3.12 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I have one brief question to ask, arising out of something which the noble Marquess said. I understood that one of his reasons for disliking the. Amendment is that it is unnecessary because the Agency has a responsibility to the Treasury. But is it not the case that that responsibility is solely financial, and that the Treasury itself would decline to enter into consideration of any wider issue than the financial issue involved?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I would not accept that. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, is responsible to Parliament, would be bound to take into consideration every question which he thought the national situation and the

1087
situation of the industry required. I could not accept that. I appreciate the purpose of noble Lords in putting forward this Amendment. I have listened with great interest to the persuasive speech made by, the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, but, quite honestly, I do not think that their fears are justified. I am quite sure that the Agency must in proper cases consult with the Board, and it is absolutely certain to do so. We have, I can assure the Committee, given a great deal of consideration to this question.
Finally, I would point out to the noble Lord that he moves back on the "Wilmot leg"—if I may call it so—off the "Chorley leg." The "Chorley leg" is "consultation where appropriate." The "Wilmot leg" is "always consultation," and I must take that to be what I call the "official leg," because that is the leg which is stood on by the promoter of the Amendment. What it really means, in effect, is that on every occasion and on every matter where a decision is to be taken by the Agency, there has to be consultation with the Board.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord says "No." If that is not what it means, then his Amendment is erroneously drafted. At any rate, that is the way in which we must read it. We believe that it will make for a clumsy, top-heavy machine. I am not complaining that the noble Lord put down the Amendment—I can quite see his purpose—but I am afraid that we cannot accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (1):
"Provided that the Agency shall unless otherwise directed by the Minister retain in respect of each of the said undertakings a sufficient number of securities to entitle the Agency to not less than four-tenths of the voting rights at any General Meeting of the shareholders of the undertaking; and"
The noble and learned Earl said: I rise to move this Amendment because I played some part in thinking it out. I believe I am right in saying that, unlike most of the Amendments we have had, this has had no counterpart in the discussions in another place. I am not at
1088
all optimistic about getting my way about this Amendment. I suspect that I shall receive the reward which the peacemaker generally receives in this world: I shall be well flogged with my olive branch and I shall get thanks from nobody. Notwithstanding that fact, I believe that it is a matter which we ought to discuss.
I discuss it for this reason, that I am very doubtful whether it is good for an industry to be in a state of flux, dependent upon Parliamentary majorities. When the Labour Party come in, it is nationalised; when the Conservative Party come in, it is restored to private enterprise. I do not quite know what its position will be when the Liberal Party come in, but perhaps we need not discuss that matter further at the moment. I make it quite plain, however, that I think the solution we had found was the right one—and I do so for this reason. I believe that the development of this industry is likely to call for important major decisions, decisions far outweighing the fate of any particular company. I believe that, with modern improvements and modern developments, it may be necessary, in the public interest, to take very unpleasant and drastic decisions. Those decisions can be taken only by the Government—that is obvious—who must balance all the considerations, the human considerations and the other considerations. I believe, therefore, that they should arm themselves with the powers by being the owners of the shares. In order that I may make my peace with the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, may I also say that I take the view that the Government should not interfere at all with the running of the companies? They should be shareholders with the ultimate power, but they should allow people who understand the business to run it for them.
After all, in the case of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, we did have, I believe, rather a happy blend of public ownership with private control. I have not verified my references, and I am not sure what proportion of the shares the Government had. I think I am right in saying (noble Lords opposite can tell me if I am wrong) that the Government held 51 per cent. of the shareholding, but I believe also that the Government did not interfere on any occasion with the running of the concern. I know that when we had

1089
our trouble about Persia we consulted with the directors and the managers of the concern about every single matter; but there was no occasion—about this I am sure I am right—when we ever dictated to the company. We discussed things together and tried to hammer out what was the right solution.
I remain absolutely unconvinced by the arguments that I have heard that this arrangement does not work properly merely because the State owns all the shares. That view does not prevail. Your Lordships take the view that it is essential that private people should own the shares so that there can be, in reality, a shareholders' meeting, a check control of the directors, and all the rest of it. I do not dispute that, but I say that it may be a wise thing, in the public interest, that we should try here the experiment of having some substantial State ownership of the shares. I have not attempted to give the State a majority of the shareholding; I have suggested 40 per cent. If 40 per cent. is too much, let us say 25 per cent. But in view of possible contingencies, I believe that it would be a good thing for all of us that there should be some substantial block of shares owned by the State.
I believe that from several points of view: first of all, because it is desirable that we should get accustomed to the idea of private enterprise and the State being thus in harness together; that I feel to be enormously important. I say, quite frankly, that no extremist on either side would accept this suggestion, be it 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or 25 per cent., as a solution. But the whirligig of politics is so uncertain and, in my long experience, so unpredictable that there may come a time when compromise has to prevail. If that time ever does come I think it is not at all a bad idea that we should begin to realise that a system whereby the State owns part of the shares but does not control the company, is a system to which we should get accustomed. As I say, I do not suppose that idea is popular from the point of view of extremists on either side. I may be almost alone in holding that view. None the less, I hold it, and I hold it sincerely. In view of all the difficulties of the situation, I believe that it is desirable, that we should try to look forward to a scheme whereby the State and private enterprise work in harmony and in harness together.
Next, I believe it is desirable from the point of view of getting the best price for these shares—because here we are dealing only with shares. Where you are dealing with a large block of shares (and I speak with great experience here, if I may say so) frequently it is very difficult to get as good a price per share as where you are dealing with a small block of shares. The very immensity of the transaction which you have to undertake necessarily narrows the market and the number of people who can undertake the business. Therefore, the fact that you are holding back a certain proportion of the shares, that you are trying to market 60 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. of the shares, would be likely, other things being equal, to mean that you can get a better price for those shares. So long as you give the purchasers clear control—as I say, I am not wedded to 40 per cent. and I hope the noble Marquess, if he replies for the Government, will not treat this Amendment as if I were so wedded—I see no reason why you should not get as good a price per share, even though you are not selling 100 per cent. of the shares. I believe that is another reason why this Amendment is a goof thing. I have suggested that the Agency should hold these shares. I realise that that may not be considered desirable and that it maybe felt that the Board should hold the shares. That is a matter of drafting about which I am not in the least concerned.
My object in framing this Amendment is to bring about a situation whereby there is a partnership between the private and the public concern, with the private enterprise managing the concern. As I say, I am not likely to get any support for the Amendment from extremists on either side: I fully realise that. But I believe that if we play the rôle which I think this House can so well play, there is no reason why we should be embroiled in extremist politics on the one side or the other. I believe that we may be taking a very wise course if we do something on these lines. May I emphasise again, that I am not wedded to the 40 per cent.?—though that, I believe, is a satisfactory sort of figure. Neither am I wedded to the question of whether the shares should be held by the Agency or transferred to the Board, or at what time they should be transferred to the Board. But I am concerned with the principle. The principle I want to establish is that, as things

1091
are to-day, this business should be run by private enterprise, because that is what the country has settled for and that is what your Lordships want. At the same time, there should be, not a controlling block but a substantial block of shares owned in some form or other by the State, in order that the State and private enterprise may work in harmony and in harness together.
I am not going to overstate my case for a moment. I do not pretend for one moment that this is a solution which would be accepted as necessarily solving the question. If I could say that it would, I should have a stronger case. But no one can possibly say that. I do say, however, that a solution on these lines is the right approach, and it may be that, ultimately, we shall have to come to a state of affairs where moderate and reasonable counsels prevail over the extremists on both sides. Therefore, I am prepared to run the risk of moving this Amendment and I am prepared to run the risk of what happens to me with my olive branch. I strongly suspect what will happen. I have raised this matter. I believe it to be one which merits most serious attention, and I very much hope that those who are not extreme politicians on both sides, and who want to see whether they cannot bring about a possible and viable solution, will support me.
It may be that so long as the industry is left in the hands of competent people, who are not interfered with by politicians—I cannot say more strongly again what I have said before, that that is the essential of the running of the industry—it does not matter very much who owns the shares. But I am rather doubtful about that. I think it must have a disturbing influence if, when one Government comes into power the shares are all owned by the State, and when the next Government comes into power they are all owned by private enterprise. As I have said, it may well be that ultimately Parliament, in its wisdom, and with the good sense of this country, will work out some compromise solution. This is only a first step towards that compromise solution, and as such I commend it to the Committee. I am prepared to take a figure which is not enough to be able to interfere with the
1092
proper commercial control of the concern, and I am prepared to have the shares held by whatever agency is right, be it the Agency set up under the Bill, the Board, or whatever is thought to be convenient. I humbly commend this solution to the Committee as one which is along the right lines and one which this House, in contradistinction perhaps to another place, may very properly commend.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, ended his remarks by suggesting modestly that this was an Amendment which merits attention. He is perfectly right. It is for that reason that I have taken the opportunity of rising now, not to beat him with his olive branch, as he gloomily forecast, but merely to offer a few observations, as clearly the Committee will want to debate this matter in some detail. It does, indeed, merit attention. I think this is an entirely novel Amendment, and one not discussed, or even thought about, in another place. It offers and opens up quite a new interpretation and a new aspect of the whole of this problem in this type of industry.
I will let the noble and learned Earl into a small personal secret. Shortly after the war, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Henry (later Lord) Badeley, of blessed memory, very kindly gave a series of lectures to those of us who had returned from the wars and were not familiar with Parliamentary procedure, upon the procedure within your Lordships' House. The other day I turned up the notes which he gave us on the subject of possible Amendments to Government Bills. He said that they fell roughly into four classes. There was the Amendment which the Government could willingly accept—we have had some of those during the course of this Committee stage. There was the Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, including the wrecking Amendment. We have had some of those, and we may possibly have some others as time goes on. There was the Amendment which at first you were not willing to accept but which the Opposition's oratory impressed you as being worthy of consideration. We have had some of those. Finally, there was a fourth type of

1093
Amendment which Lord Badeley described as the "My goodness me! what are these fellows up to now?" sort of Amendment.
I must confess, frankly, that when I saw this Amendment I did not know what was behind it. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has pointed out, not exactly what was behind it, but what the Amendment is striving to achieve. This is something novel and something important. Before the Committee make up their minds how they would like the Amendment to be treated, I think it is only right that one or two of the practical snags inherent in the noble and learned Earl's scheme should be considered. The Amendment, as drafted—I appreciate that the noble and learned Earl does not stick very closely to his draftsmanship as a matter of principle—would have the effect of ensuring that unless the Minister directed otherwise, the Government would permanently be the owner of some 40 per cent. of the equity of the steel companies. In this form it would be open, so far as I can see, to these practical objections. First, it would make it difficult, if not impossible, to sell any of the equity. A 40 per cent. interest is generally a controlling interest, if the rest of the equity is scattered—I apologise for mentioning this to someone with the experience of the noble and learned Earl, but I think it as well that the facts should be made clear—and there would be little incentive to the private investor to take up any of the equity except at a very low price. In addition, it would make it very difficult to persuade the institutions to buy the shares of the steel companies.
The second point that occurs to me is this. To provide that the Government should be the holder of 40 per cent. or 25 per cent., or what you will, of the equity of the steel companies would be undesirable so far as the private companies are concerned. The existence of a large minority shareholding, if only of 25 per cent., would make it difficult for the parent companies to arrange their relations with their otherwise wholly-owned subsidiaries. For example, one of the interests arising from the ownership of steel making is the control of quality. That can be and has been very severe. This control may affect the profitability of the subsidiaries, thus affecting minority shareholders' rights.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: How?
LORD MANCROFT: The parent company might insist upon a quality in the product which it required from its subsidiary that would not be financially profitable in the open market, for a company which was not a controlled subsidiary. On the other hand, there is little point in minority shareholding if all the rest of the holding is concentrated in one hand. Such a holding gives neither control nor influence.
The third point is that the Bill, as at present drafted, without the Amendment, implies that the Agency will be temporary. This was a point which came out in the debate on the previous Amendment. To our way of thinking, that is essential in the Bill, and that is an essential feature of our concept of this scheme If the Agency were to remain a permanent shareholder—I think the noble and learned Earl envisages that it should remain a permanent shareholder—then the Agency would itself become a permanency. Again, I am not beating the-noble and learned Earl with his olive branch; I am only pointing out the practical consequences of the Amendment as it stands. As it stands, it is a flat contradiction of the declared objective of the Government, embodied in the Bill, that the steel industry should be returned to private ownership. I have not, I hope, done what the noble and learned Earl feared that I would, but have done what I thought it my duty to do at an early stage—I have tried to point out some of the practical difficulties raised by the noble and learned Earl's very interesting, but very far-reaching and wide-sweeping, Amendment.
3.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I briefly try to answer the two main objections put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? This Amendment does raise very important issues, and I am not atempting in any way to deal with the whole subject—I rise only to try to answer two of the noble Lord's points Lord Mancroft says that a 40 per cent, interest would, in effect, give control when the other shares were scattered. But: do we envisage public issues all over the place every month or so, inviting the general body of shareholders to come into the steel industry again? Surely

1095
what the Government wants the Agency to do is to sell the shares of the companies—in other words, to hand them back to private owners. The Government would not want them to be sold to a host of small shareholders but to the big corporations, as the noble Lord has mentioned, or to special companies formed for the purpose. The shares would not be sold on the market, to be bought up by clergymen and widows, and so on, as was the case with railway shares a hundred years ago. In this instance, it will be a great financial operation. We know that the Bank of England has been given instructions, and they will look with an indulgent eye on the operations necessary—of course they will—for the issue of the capital to buy up this great undertaking. Therefore, the 40 per cent. will not be a controlling interest. It will be a large interest. It will give the State, the Treasury, a foothold in the industry.
As I have said, I am not attempting to deal with great principles—thereare great principles involved here—and the only other point I wish to refer to is this. Lord Mancroft said that the adoption of this Amendment would mean maintaining the Agency in perpetuity. Why should the Agency hold the 40 per cent. of the shares? The Treasury would hold them. My noble friend quoted the case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or, as it was, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That transaction was a Treasury transaction. I can go back further to the case of the Suez Canal shares. We did not have to create a special Agency to maintain our holding in the Suez Canal Company. The Treasury holds the shares. In this case, when the Agency has done its work it can be wound up. I suggest that those are answers—perhaps not complete ones—to the arguments put forward by Lord Mancroft in opposition to my noble Leader's speech.
3.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, came back to the point with which some of us on the Second Reading of this Bill tried todeal—namely, whether we could not ensure that this industry in the future would not be, as it were, a sort of political football, passing backwards and forwards according to the particular complexion of the Government of the day.
1096
To that extent, I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Earl for having raised this point in the very interesting speech which he made. If we agree with the purpose of the noble and learned Earl, we must equally address ourselves to the method which he proposes. He said that he was not wedded to the Agency, and he was not wedded to the 40 per cent. Nevertheless, an Amendment must be judged in two ways: it must be judged, first, as to what it does, what it aims to do, broadly in principle; and secondly, as to how in detail it proposes to fulfil its particular purpose. The noble and learned Earl said that he felt that partial public ownership was essential if the State interest was to be served. I wonder whether I might take issue with him on that, and question whether State ownership in part, in the form of shareholding, is essential for the serving of the public interest. I would maintain that the public interest is served already by the broad structure of this Bill. The Board, with their supervisory powers over the industry, can exercise those powers in the national interest, and public ownership is not necessary for serving the national interest.
This Amendment has two practical results. It converts the Agency into a long-term body, whereas, in fact, it is set up for a particular short-term task. Secondly, it would give effective control to the Government. If the Government had a 40 per cent. or a 30 per cent., perhaps even a 20 per cent., interest in the equity of the companies, and if the balance of ownership was a widely diffused balance, owned by a large number of individual shareholders, that would give an opportunity for public control without nationalisation.
LORD CHORLEY: Would the noble Lord say how that differs from the case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I have not the exact figures about the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. I do not know what percentage of the capital the Government own. But what I am saying is that this would be in accord with what the Co-operative Societies say in a recent pamphlet:
"Public control can be secured by purchasing an interest, through the acquisition of shares in existing undertakings or with the appointment of directors representing the public interest."

1097
I believe that arty single body, whether it be the Government or an institution, that owns a 40 per cent. or 30 per cent. proportion of the equity of these companies, would be entitled to, and should, appoint directors to the boards in order to safeguard their large and substantial shareholdings. So we should really get to the point where the Government of the day would virtually have control without nationalisation. I do not think it is the noble and learned Earl's intention that that should come about, but I believe that would be the final result of this Amendment, if it were passed. For these reasons, and particularly for the reason that I believe public ownership of shares is not necessary for the service of the public interest, I hope the Government will resist this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I am sorry the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, should class me as an extremist. If all those who oppose this Amendment are to be called extremists, then we are all extremists. I never regarded myself as one and I do not think my friends or my enemies do so either. I think any substantial block of shares, even 25 per cent., would give effective control of any of these companies, because I visualise that the balance of shares would be widely distributed. The usual procedure would be to get a quotation on the Stock Exchange and then the shares would be sold off in small parcels to the public, and I hope to the employees; therefore there would be a wide diffusion. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, well knows, anything up to 20 per cent. in one hand gives a substantial degree of control. I should have been very reluctant to bring forward as an example the case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. That company has met with a singularly unhappy fate, and I do not think it should be entirely dismissed as impossible that the fact that there were Government directors in that company may have contributed to that fate, because that fact meant that the company was morally bound to support Sir Stafford Cripps' dividend limitation, which bore uncommonly hard on the Iranian Government at the time.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Lord is making a serious allegation. Has he the slightest justification for making that allegation?
LORD HAWKE: I am making no allegation at all. I am saying that any company with Government directors on the hoard must morally respect the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even when history may say it might have served better the ultimate business interests of the company to have ignored it.
EARL JOWITT: Is the noble Lord suggesting that the difficulty with Persia would have been avoided if there had been no restraint on the amount of dividend?
LORD HAWKE: Nobody who speculates in history can tell what would have happened. I say only that it might have happened. When the House was dealing with the Transport Bill, I was the protagonist of a scheme whereby the State Transport Commission would own a certain share of the capital in some of the road haulage companies. I put that suggestion forward with the specific intention that there should be some co-ordination of services and the avoidance of uneconomic competition. Here the conditions are entirely different. In this Bill there is no question whatsoever of the avoidance of uneconomic competition, or of co-ordination. The cases are completely different. For that reason I do not: support this proposal although I supported such a proposal in the former Bill. Here the noble and learned Earl has completely different reasons for part ownership and these reasons are precisely against the proposition of the Bill espoused by noble Lords on these Benches. We are against State ownership of this industry and his Amendment is trying to bring it in by the side door.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: For the most part the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, seem to have no relevance to the present argument. He certainly knows that his remarks about the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company have no relevance to the issue.
LORD HAWKE: It was not I who introduced the argument about the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: But the noble Lord made a suggestion which has not any truth in it, a suggestion which certainly may reflect on either the Government directors or on the late Sir Stafford Cripps, I am not clear which.

1099
But even that has no relevance to this argument. I wish to address myself to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who argued that the broad public interest was already served by the form of organisation set up by this Bill. But I do not think that is the case. There is not a word in the Bill—I am subject to correction here—about the broad public interest. A Board is to be set up, none of whose members is representative of the public interest, and in my submission that interest is not represented at all, either on the Agency or the Board, or elsewhere.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I suggest to the noble Lord that he should look at paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum on page 1 of the Bill, where it says that the Board is to be appointed by the Minister of Supply, with certain general duties, and if the Board does not fulfil these duties, then, of course, the Minister can take steps to have them carried out?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: That is very far from the public interest. Again that seems to have no relevance to this matter. There is nothing in the Bill which says the broad public interest is to be served by the Board or anybody else, so that the noble Lord's whole argument goes by the board. I should have thought that as a practicable proposition it might have been of great advantage both to the Government and to the future private owners of this industry if the Government had an interest in it in some form, either through the Treasury or through the Board. So far as I can see, they are not likely to sell undertakings; it would be much easier, I should have thought, to sell and have the money provided for three-quarters of an undertaking than for the whole. Less money will be required. Therefore I should have thought that the Government might have looked at the matter favourably from that point of view. Secondly, I should have thought that many companies—I do not say all—would be glad if a proportion of the money was found by the Government. I can think of many companies which would be very happy if money could be found by the Government to take over their undertakings. That seems to me to be an argument that would appeal to many companies.
1100
Thirdly, I should have thought that the Government might have an interest in a concern, because then they would have responsibility for it; they would have knowledge of the operations of the company; they would, in certain circumstances, be able to use their influence with the company; in certain circumstances they would be able to provide money for the company; and the fact that the Government had an interest in it would give the company better credit than it might otherwise have. From all those practical points of view, apart from the general submission which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made, I should have thought that those were distinct advantages to practical people who may take over these enterprises from the present set-up. I submit that those considerations might well be borne in mind by the Government in this matter.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Probably nearly every member of this Committee would agree with what is the primary purpose of this Amendment. It is to try and find some way by which this great industry can be relieved of the perpetual political strife which takes place around it. I have always felt, as I have said several times in these discussions, that in a peculiar way the future of Britain is harnessed to the future of the steel industry. It must be a most damaging thing that fierce, deep political rifts should occur about the future of this industry every time there is a change of Government. Whatever may have been the mistakes of the past—if there have been mistakes—this Government will not escape the censure of history for having once more thrown this industry into the political arena. They need not have done so. They could have found some accommodation, or, at any rate, they might have tried. But they have made no effort at all. They have merely reversed the engines and are returning to the status quo. It seems to me that that is a bankrupt form of statesmanship, when you are dealing with the vitals of a nation utterly dependent upon this industry.
Somewhere between absolute Socialism and absolute private enterprise alone will peace be found. There is no peace in this Bill. Somebody, somewhere, has got to find that peace. Why should we not try to do it now? Ever since I have been

1101
concerned with this matter—and. it is a good many years now—I have believed that there is an essential partnership between this industry and the State: and I ask the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to acquit me of Party considerations in this matter. It is inherent in the position of the industry. We have to find some political instrument which will give effect to that partnership. In drafting the Steel Bill which was passed in 1949 an attempt was made—I do not wish to discuss it or to defend it now—to put management in the hands of the private managers, and ownership of the essential part in the hands of a public agency. This Bill seeks to alter that. This Amendment, which was moved, I thought, so eloquently by my noble and learned Leader, does suggest a method. He said that he is not tied to his proposal of 40 per cent. He wants a partnership—a partnership based upon some share in ownership. No partnership is a real partnership unless it is so based.
The objections which have been urged against it by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others, do not go to the principle at all; they deal with difficulties of administration, none of which is fundamental. The equity will not be widely diffused. Nobody really believes that this industry will be returned to the original shareholders—it cannot be done. The equity will be held in comparatively few hands: and the fact that the Government, or a Government agency, is the holder of a small minority holding, even if it was as much as 40 per cent., would not affect the value of the equity as the noble Lord suggests; in fact it might greatly enhance it, because days may be coming in which the steel industry once again will have to look to the Government for financial succour, as it has in days gone by. It may well be that the Government partnership could be a substantial bull point for the equity of this industry.
One noble Lord talked about questions of quality and the effect of the quality of the primary producer upon the products of subsidiaries. My noble and learned Leader distinctly and specifically said it is not intended to vest in these shares any attributes of management. Management would be vested entirely in the managers and in those who control the majority undertakings. It is for that very reason that a minority holding is suggested. One noble Lord said: "You will have this holding in the hands of an
1102
Agency which is intended to be a temporary and ephemeral body." But the holding can just as well be transferred to the Board or to the Treasury. These are objections about details which nobody has attempted to lay down.
Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to ask him one question. What view do the Government take about their responsibility for the long-term future of this great industry? We know that a Government elected in 1945 with a substantial majority carried out, not in that Parliament but in the subsequent Parliament, after much consideration, disputation and debate, a policy which was declared and twice submitted to the electors. Merely to reverse that policy is to invite further political strife about this matter. I would suggest that this Government have a unique opportunity to find some permanent course of action which will remove this perpetual struggle for all time. This Bill will not do that. This is merely an invitation to still further strife; and I beg of them, either now or at a later stage in the Bill, to give some indication that they realise their responsibilities in this matter.
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I said something now. If I may so express myself, I do not want to go too far into the persuasive polemics with which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, began his speech. He attacked the present Government for attempting to denationalise this industry—I think he said "again throwing this great industry into strife." Apparently in his mind that consideration did not apply to the nationalisation by the late Government of the industry, which was working perfectly well under its then organisation. As I said on Second Reading, this is one-way traffic with a vengeance. If we were to accept this view, if the country were to accept the view that it was always legitimate for a Labour Party to change the economic and social system of this country, but that it was never legitimate for the Conservative Party to put it back where we believe the country would wish it to be, that can only mean the victory of the extremists and the defeat of that moderation for which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has made so eloquent an appeal to-day.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Marquess should not misrepresent me. I was not making a Party appeal. I did not ask him to put it back. I asked him to find some middle road.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then perhaps the noble Lord will listen to what I have to say. It must be said that the noble Lord did, in a rather provocative way, go into the past, instead of looking, as we hoped he would, into the future.
Having said that, I am very ready to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, in the speech which he delivered this afternoon, which clearly made an important contribution to our discussions. By his interpretation of the Amendment which he was moving he made it a much more considerable affair than the words of the Amendment themselves indicated, because he added to the actual effect of the Amendment the purpose for which it was put down by him. I can assure him that I am not going to subject him this afternoon to what he called, I am sorry to say, rather sadly, the normal fate of peacemakers, which I understand to be an extremely painful one. But, equally, I am bound to point out that, as expounded by him, this Amendment goes very far indeed. It involves in one important respect a complete alteration in the character of the Bill which Parliament is discussing. Under this Bill, as it is at present drafted and interpreted, this Agency is to be a temporary organism. Its only purpose is to effect the liquidation of State holdings in the iron and steel industry; when that has been done it will have performed its duty, and will fade out.
Under the proposition which the noble and learned Earl has put to us to-day, that conception, as I understand it, is radically altered. The Agency would cease to be a temporary one, and it would become a permanent body holding permanently 40 per cent., or some smaller proportion, of the shares of the industry on behalf of the Government—I think I am interpreting his meaning correctly. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has already explained to the Committee some of the main practical difficulties, as we see them, of a development of that kind, and I do not want to traverse again the ground he has already covered. At any rate, the Committee will have seen that
1104
in the view of us on this side of the House they are very real difficulties. In any case, however that may be, I fully appreciate the noble Earl's intention. He has thrown out what he calls an olive branch; he wants to try to find a middle line between conflicting views. For that I honour him. Whatever views we hold, we must always try, if we can, to get an agreed solution of great Party problems.
What was not clear from the noble Earl's speech—and I hope he will not mind my asking the question—nor was it clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, who spoke on rather the same lines, though perhaps a little more robustly, was whether they put forward this olive branch on their own behalf or on behalf of the Party which the noble Earl has the honour and privilege of leading in this House.
EARL JOWITT: I put it forward on my own behalf. I said that I could not promise that the acceptance of this Amendment would mean that there was a settlement of the whole thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a very important matter. It is one thing that there should be put forward to us a proposal which we know to be acceptable to the Opposition as a Party and which does, therefore, form a solid basis for inter-Party agreement that might lead to an enduring national settlement of this great problem; and it is quite another to have a proposal which is put forward by one or two noble Lords, however eminent they may be; because if the Amendment has only them behind it, it may be thrown over at any moment by their own Party. The Government might find themselves in the strange and embarrassing position of having radically modified the original plan—which they drew up after an immense amount of consideration—thinking that it was going to lead to an enduring agreement, and then, after the Bill had gone back to another place, finding that it meant nothing at all. That, I am afraid, would do a great deal more harm than good, because, instead of increasing the confidence of the Parties in each other, it would lead to a great increase of friction, which would be neither for the good of the country nor for the good of the industry.
In any case, I should not have been in a position to-day to express a definite

1105
view about this Amendment, even if it had had behind it the whole weight of the Party of noble Lords opposite. I am not in a position to do that, and it would have required much more consideration. But if it is only the two noble Lords who have spoken, however eminent they may be, and if they have no reason to give us an assurance that their views are likely to be reflected by the main body of their Party, then I am afraid that to ask us radically to alter the whole basis of our scheme would be too difficult for us. I am sure they will understand that, and in these circumstances I am afraid that we cannot accept their Amendment. In saying what I have said, I have tried to indicate that I fully appreciate the purity of the motives which inspired the noble and learned Earl to table his Amendment.
4.8 p.m.
LORD SILKEN: I think this Amendment has brought forward an atmosphere which may have far-reaching effects. I fully appreciate that the noble Marquess is not in a position to accept this Amendment, and I further appreciate all the things that he has said as to the position of my two noble and eminent friends who put this forward. Perhaps I may be included in their company, if not in the term "eminent." My main purpose in rising was to clear away one of the difficulties which the noble Marquess emphasised on the practical side of this Amendment. It is that the structure of the Bill makes the Agency a temporary organisation, and that it would therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to give them shares which, after a certain time, would have to be disposed of. I think the noble Marquess has overlooked Clause 25 of the Bill, which actually makes provision for this very contingency.
From subsection (1), it appears that, when the time comes, the Minister may wind up the Agency. Then subsection (2) says this:
"If, immediately before the dissolution of the Agency, the Agency have any property, rights, liabilities or obligations, the order shall make provision—

(a)) for transferring them…to a Minister of the Crown or his nominees or agents and for the disposal thereof;…"

Therefore, this matter is taken care of by the foresight, of the drafters of the Bill itself. I do not think the fact that
1106
the Agency is a temporary one need provide insuperable difficulties. Of course, that does not dispose of the matter. It is right that Her Majesty's Government should put forward some practical effects of this Amendment, but I do not think that other factors need hold up the expedient of trying the principle. Of course, my noble Leader will decide what shall be done about this Amendment; but I feel that, whatever happens, it has resulted in the Parties coming a little closer together on this issue; and if, in the end, it should turn out that we have done something to put an end to this battle over the body of the iron and steel industry the Amendment will have had a valuable result.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am speaking without the book: I have only just looked at this clause in the light of what the noble Lord has said. I think he reads a little more into it than is intended. I think the purpose of subsection (2) is this. There will come a moment when the Agency is to be dissolved, but that does not mean that every single share will have been disposed of—that may be an impossible event to wait for. Under this clause even if some shares remain to be disposed of, the Agency can be dissolved. But this was not intended to be a loophole for Agency or State ownership of the shares to be continued permanently. It is not for me to say what noble Lords opposite shall do with their Amendment—it is for them. We cannot accept it, though we recognise the spirit in which it has been put forward. But there is a Report stage, and if noble Lords would like to think it over and see where they stand, well and good. They held out the olive branch, presumably, not only to us but to some of their own Party in another place, and it may bring back better results than some of us might expect. I do not think we can do anything more about it at this stage, and I should not like to hold out any hope that we can do so.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we come to the end of this very important discussion I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the, implication of the remarks which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has just made. He was accepting my noble Leader's olive branch as an olive branch—and the noble

1107
Earl was not being chastised with it. He then challenged us on these Benches to say whether we spoke officially for the whole of the Labour Party on this matter. That is surely a very novel procedure. It is one which I have never heard mentioned before. I have sat in this House for seventeen years; I have taken part in many discussions and I have benefited very much from much that has fallen from noble Lords on both sides of the House. But I have never heard the Opposition, whether Conservative or Labour, challenged as to whether they were speaking for their Party in another place. That puts the relationship between the two Houses on an entirely new footing. We met together, those of us who were interested in this matter, and had a discussion with our colleagues in another place and we put forward certain Amendments. If the Government accept the Amendments it is for the House of Commons to discuss them. But to ask us whether we speak for our Party in another place is a new doctrine to me. We never ask the noble Marquess whether he speaks for the Government; we take that for granted: but that does not give him any right to ask us who has inspired or instigated our Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord, as so often, had better have remained silent, because it was the natural thing for us on this side to ask the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition whether he was speaking for his Party. The noble and learned Earl was very careful what he said, and rightly indicated a doubt that that was so; but it was natural for us to ask him the question. I think that on this occasion the noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree.
LORD CHORLEY: May I say a few words on this subject? What we have been discussing during the last few minutes is not an ordinary type of Committee point; it is really in the nature of a policy problem, which is normally discussed on Second Reading. I think the Government might well consider this proposal on its merits, rather than raise the question whether it represents the official policy of the Labour Party. Surely it must be obvious to everybody that, during the next generation or two, industries in this country will be carried
1108
on on the basis of a mixed economy. We shall have some industries which are nationalised; we shall have some smaller industries—those which, perhaps, are not basically of the same national concern—which for some substantial period will be carried on under private enterprise. In between, there are industries which, if we are not careful, will be the shuttlecock of conflict between Parties. I should have thought that it was very important—and in a way more important from the point of view of the Conservative Party than from that of the Party to which noble Lords on this side belong—to try to find some sort of via media along which the nation could travel.
The Conservative Party have in effect just gone back to the old position, J'y suis, j'y reste. Eventually, they always come round. This House, in about the year 2000, will no doubt witness the spectacle of a descendant of the noble Marquess defending very powerfully the sort of situation which the noble Marquess himself is now condemning. That always happens: it is part of the general political development of this country. But I should have thought that the present Conservative Party, with its leadership, might have attempted to find some via media for dealing with these intermediate industries. The Labour Party's Bill of 1948 was not a full nationalisation Bill. We attempted to find some sort of method by which this great industry could be maintained and organised. But, that having been rejected, it was up to those concerned to try to find some compromise method. I think it is a wise thing to do that if possible.
My noble Leader has suggested a method which may be a via media. I suggest that it should be looked at. There are other national economies from which we can learn something. I understand that Finland, for example, which has not by any means a Socialist economy, has made an experiment of this kind. They have adopted a scheme of having substantial State holdings in an industry which is nationally important—and adopted it with complete success. I would suggest to the noble Marquess that he should look at the matter again and perhaps consider what has happened in other countries and what has happened in connection with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the Suez Canal and other

1109
things of that kind, to see whether the Government themselves cannot discover some method which would enable us to carry forward this great industry without, is my noble Leader has said, after every Election making it the battledore and shuttlecock of political antagonism.
EARL JOWITT: I am not going to ask the Committee to go to a Division on this Amendment but perhaps it can be negatived. I am glad we have had this discussion. I thought it right to raise it, though I think I made it quite plain in raising it that I was not speaking for my Party. I could not say that this would be a settlement of the whole problem, or anything of that sort. I simply said that I thought it desirable that the two different and rival methods of organisation should get to know each other a little better by working in harness together. I gave as an illustration the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The only point in this discussion that I regret is the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, which I can regard only as an attack and a criticism of the directors of that body. Having been through the whole of those negotiations, I can only say that if the noble Lord had known as much about them as I did, if he had known what Dr. Mossadeq was like, I feel certain he would have agreed that whether the directors had regarded what Sir Stafford Cripps said or had completely disregarded it, it would not have made a pennyworth of difference to the fortunes of that company in Persia at that time.
LORD HAWKE: I know that the noble and learned Earl has been through all the papers and had an opportunity of studying them, and I fully accept everything he said. I was not making any personal attack on the directors.
EARL JOWITT: I am glad to hear that, because the noble Lord left me under the impression that he was. I did not represent this proposition of mine as being clothed with any Party authority. I represented it as a perfect specimen of the nude, and it is as a perfect specimen of the nude that you have scorned it and turned it down. In the fullness of time, let that be remembered. If it is said that we on this side of the House, are always the unreasonable people, let it be remembered that at any rate on
1110
this occasion I have done what I could to suggest what might be a possible solution for a difficulty which is going to be a very real difficulty in time to come. What will happen about this industry—I never utter threats—I have no knowledge, and it is quite impossible to forecast what the Labour Party in power in this country, if and when they get back, will do to this industry. It would be simply foolish to forecast, and I am not going to try to predict at all. It is to guard against possible dangers, and only that, that I made the proposition I did. As I say, I am not going to ask the House to divide upon this Amendment, but if necessary it can be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided also that no one sale or disposal of any securities or other assets by the Agency, the total consideration for which exceeds one million pounds, shall be valid unless the Minister shall have previously signified his approval thereof; and his approval shall not be effective until he shall have so signified it by a direction in that behalf to be given by a statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament and shall not come into operation unless and until affirmed by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I hope: that the brevity of my remarks in favour of it will not be interpreted as indicating either a lack of interest or a lack of conviction that the Amendment is a right one, but in view of the time that has been taken on the last Amendment I will do my best to be brief. I hope it may be possible to get some satisfaction. The purpose of the Amendment is twofold: one is to ensure that before the Agency disposes of any undertaking where a large sum of money is involved—where it exceeds £1 million—they must get the approval of the Minister; the second is to ensure that Parliament shall be informed. The Amendment goes rather further than that and requires an Affirmative Resolution of each House for any such sale. On reconsideration, I think that possibly that is going a little far, and that if Parliament is informed and has an opportunity of raising the matter before the transaction is concluded, that should be satisfactory. I attach great importance to the Agency getting the specific approval of the

1111
Minister for a transaction of the magnitude of £1 million or more, and I think Parliament should be informed.
I do not think I need emphasise the first point. It is obvious that a £1 million transaction is one on which there ought to be the most careful consideration, and even approval. On the second point, the question of notification of Parliament, there is, of course, provision in the Bill for informing Parliament. The Agency is required under Clause 23 of the Bill to inform Parliament every year, as soon as possible after the end of each year, as to the
"exercise and performance of their functions during that year."
But that is rather notifying Parliament after it is too late for it to have any influence on the work of the Agency. The principle of notification of Parliament is accepted and I have no objection to it in the case of smaller transactions. In the case of these large transactions, however, I think that Parliament ought to be specifically notified. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support this Amendment from two points of view: first, from the point of view of the iron and steel industry and the provisions made for it in this Bill. If the Bill indicates that transactions involving £1 million or more shall be referred to the Minister, with a view to their coming under the notice of Parliament, I think it will ensure the greatest care and attention on the part of the Agency. The Agency will go into their business much more rigorously and much more carefully if they know that their actions may eventually come under the searchlight of Parliament. We shall get a more efficient transaction and execution of the work of the Agency if this Amendment is accepted.
But I support the Amendment for a larger reason still, and that is in regard to public economy. It is this sort of measure which can have some effect in reducing the very high Government expenditure from which we suffer at the present moment. One way of getting that expenditure down is, where reasonable and possible, to bring all expenditure
1112
under the scrutiny of Parliament. The more Parliamentary scrutiny there is in such matters, the more light that is brought to bear on Government expenditure, the more possibility there is of getting that expenditure reduced. I know that there is a tendency to regard proposals for economy only in a large way. Whenever any economy or any supervision is proposed for something small, it is said: "It is really such a small matter that economy is not worth while; supervision is not really necessary," and in that way a habit of wasteful spending and of insufficient scrutiny of public expenditure grows up; whereas if, as in this instance, expenditure and transactions are subject to the review of Parliament, the habit of careful scrutiny and of economy is much more likely to be inculcated. Only when there is such rigid supervision as this Amendment proposes can the public interest really be preserved. There is far too little stress placed in this Bill on public interest. The Government have rejected Amendment after Amendment which proposed that there should be more control in the public interest. I believe that only by such scrutiny as is suggested in this Amendment can the public interest really be secured. For those reasons I support the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I wish to support this Amendment, for slightly different reasons than those which have been so cogently advanced by my noble friend, Lord Winster. What worries me about some aspects of this Bill is the possibility of its increasing the already too monopolistic situation which exists in the steel industry. No other industry is so closely knit and, as has appeared from time to time during the course of this discussion, undoubtedy that has its effect on prices, which everybody knows are very high indeed. I am not saying that large scale organisation is not very necessary, but, in my view, when a complete monopoly or something of that sort is established, it is safe only in the hands of the community as a whole—in other words, in a nationalised industry, where the chief incentive is not that of making a private profit out of it. If these very large aggregations are to be built up and over £1 million of shares transferred to this or that organisation without any public supervision or control, the danger is that there will be established a monopolistic

1113
company which will have much too great a power in the land.
By this Amendment, we are breaking up any "Krupp organisation." One of the main objectives after the war in Germany was to break up the Krupp organisation in the iron and steel industry. It had become the over-mighty subject—an expression which used to be heard in the Middle Ages when some individual built up a private army and acquired so, much land that his position in the State threatened that of the King himself. We have long passed the age of the over-mighty subject of that kind; but in the modern State the over-mighty subject is the great monopolistic joint stock company with its tentacles throughout industry and with a solid position, perhaps in the heart of the iron and steel industry. I suggest that if that danger is to be overcome, the Minister should have full control, and what is happening should be brought to the attention of Parliament. For that reason, I think this is an Amendment which might well be made to the Bill.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that not even the persuasive oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his two "juniors" can convince me that this Amendment is practicable. The purposes behind it and the sentiments they have expressed seem to me wholly admirable—certainly those voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, favouring economy in public expenditure are sentiments which we particularly like to hear coming from those Benches. That is not a remark with which I can possibly quarrel. So far as concerns the suggestion that in this Bill we have not taken sufficient care of the public interest, noble Lords on this side have argued Amendment after Amendment in trying to convince the Committee that the public interest has been wholly safeguarded.
The effect of this Amendment would be that disposals operations for a price of £1 million or more would require the consent of the Minister of Supply and an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. Whatever the desirability of that may be in theory, in practice it would be quite impracticable. What is more, it would make satisfactory disposal almost impossible. So far as private negotiations with large-scale buyers are concerned, no deal
1114
could be concluded if the buyer had to face the delays and uncertainties of the procedure which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, advocates—or, if it could, it would be only at prices noticeably lower than those which could be obtained if both parties were free to make a bargain promptly and effectively at the moment terms were agreed.
So far as disposals by public issue or offer for sale are concerned, the terms of such issue or offer have to be settled at the last minute in the light of the day-to-day position in the market. The Treasury, with the aid of their professional advisers, are continually handling Government issues in this way. I submit that to hamstring the Agency (because that is what it would amount to) as is proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment would be as unreasonable as to make the terms of issue of Government securities subject to Affirmative Resolution. It would be inappropriate to subject the operations of the Agency (which, as the Committee are aware, are in general under the direction of the Treasury), to approval by the Minster of Supply, for they are concerned with actual disposal operations, which are essentially of a financial nature, rather than with the technical structure of the industry. Here I would emphasise a point which I have already made—there would be the closest consultation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply. But to put a formal and statutory responsibility on the Minister in relation to disposal, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be responsible to Parliament, would, I suggest, blur the responsibilities of the respective Ministers and not really help in any way at all.
Whilst I did not quite catch his argument, I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested, that as the Agency are disposing of assets of very large value and will, in many cases, be disposing of them in single operations covering many millions of pounds, the approval of Parliament should be obtained before the acceptance of a price becomes binding. In fact, the precedents do not confirm that argument at all. Contracts are continually being placed without prior approval by Parliament—surplus stores are one example of things being disposed of in the same way on the largest scale.

1115
It is true that where practicable competitive tenders are obtained, but there have been many cases, and particularly in regard to such properties as factories, where competition of that sort was not possible and disposal had to be by private negotiations. Equally, it is precisely the largest contracts for purchases which cannot be put out to tender, but have to be negotiated with a single prospective contractor or supplier, without competition, or, at best, with the possibility of choosing between only two or three competitors. The Minister of Food (Financial Powers) Act of 1949 empowered the Minister to make long-term contracts without any need for Parliamentary approval, whether by Affirmative Resolution or Negative Resolution procedure—and the case for prior approval of such contracts must surely be much greater than in the kind of deal which will be made under the Bill.
To sum up, I fully appreciate what it is the noble Lord has in mind: that here sums of £1 million or upwards are being dealt with, and in the public interest it should be possible for Parliament to see that there is no wastage, no unnecessary extravagance, and that the public interest is best served. Those are admirable sentiments, but I would submit that the way the noble Lord wants it to be done is just not physically possible—it is just not practicable. That has been clearly borne in mind by the Government, who have taken every precaution—Parliamentary, practical and legislative—to make certain that the needs the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has so eloquently put forward are met. The disposal of companies at a price below what the Agency and the Treasury believed to be fair would be inconsistent with the wording of Clauses 18 (1) and 19 (6). I know that the fear of such disposals is behind arguments which noble Lords have put forward. In addition, on several specific occasions Her Majesty's Government have given assurances that this is not going to occur. I am going to ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment, whilst, at the same time. I accept entirely the sentiments which have prompted him to move it. I give him once again the assurance Mat the objections and the difficulties which he has foreseen have been clearly borne in mind, and I say that I think
1116
they are sufficiently covered and safeguarded by the Bill as it stands.
LORD SILKIN: I have listened with considerable interest to what the noble Lord has said. Frankly, when looking at this Amendment again this morning I realised that it would not really be practical politics to ask Parliament for an Affirmative Resolution on all transactions over £1 million. For that reason I do not feel that I am in a position to press the Amendment. Nevertheless, I feel that transactions which involve over £1 million do need special consideration of some kind. I propose to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, but, having regard to the fact that the noble Lord has encouraged the sentiments which are behind it, I will consider another form of words which will not be subject to the same objections as are those set out in this Amendment but which will, nevertheless, seek to give us what we want to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Powers of Agency in respect of securities and companies
(6) The appropriate department shall, in exercising their powers under the last preceding subsection, have regard to the obligation of the Agency under the last preceding section to secure an adequate consideration for the assets disposed of in the discharge of their duty under that section; and, in deciding what would be an adequate consideration for any securities or other assets so disposed of, the appropriate department shall take all material factors into account including the physical assets, capital structure, reserves and trading prospects of the company in question, and the monetary and market conditions prevailing at the time of sale.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, in subsection (6), after "including" to insert:
"the value of such securities or, as the case may be, of securities relating to such other assets, as in either case determined under and in pursuance of the provisions of Part II of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949,"
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether one can expect the same kindly consideration for this most constructive Amendment as we have had on one or two previous occasions. I shall be very brief because there is not a very big point here, although the Amendment is important.
Subsection (6) of Clause 19, which deals with the mechanism for the disposal of these great assets, was put in by the Minister in response, I think I may say, to very considerable feeling in the other place that there ought to be some directive to the Agency engaged in what is not only a formidable but also, in very large measure, a novel task. Having regard to the magnitude of the assets, it was felt that some sort of directive should be given to the Agency as to the considerations they should bear in mind. This Amendment simply adds to the things to which considerations shall be given the value which was paid for the particular asset by way of compensation to the previous owners when the asset was acquired. A great many people felt and said, both m Parliament and elsewhere—whether rightly or wrongly I cannot judge—that the price paid when those assets were acquired was below what it should have been in equity. To ask that the Agency shall have regard to the price that was paid is a most reasonable request. I do not ask that they shall necessarily make that the only consideration, but it certainly is one of the considerations they should bear in mind as ordinary business men would when selling assets. The practice of business men would be to look up what the assets stood at in the books of the Company, and what was the price paid for them. In view of the fact that this Amendment follows ordinary commercial practice, I think I can confidently ask the Government to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 28, after ("including") insert the said words.—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add just one or two words to what the noble Lord has said. He has pointed out that this subsection was inserted in order to ensure that the Agency might have in mind relevant matters in considering the question of price. What the subsection does is to set out all the obvious things that the Agency would have in mind, but the one thing which the Agency might leave out, and which they obviously ought to consider, is the one thing which my noble friend asks may be inserted. Therefore, I suggest that this clause will not really be an effective clause unless the Amendment is inserted. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I wish to support the Amendment with two or three very brief words. I read the Report of what took place in another place on this matter, and, while I must not put words into his mouth, I felt that the Minister was impressed by the strength of the arguments brought forward in support of the contention that regard should be had to compensation. But although he may have been impressed by the strength of those arguments, I feel that he did not meet them with the Amendment which was made in this subsection. I think some regard ought to be paid to compensation. Public money has been paid out in compensation in these matters. Of course, there are people who think the amount too low. Still, compensation having been decided by some yardstick, I think that now, when securities are to be returned to private ownership, some consideration ought to be given to the compensation paid when the previous Act was going through. Whether or not the Minister was impressed by the strength of the arguments, certainly he did not yield to them sufficiently to put into the Bill words which bore them out. As Lord Chorley has said, a great many matters have been put in which inevitably would be considered without special provision being made. I think there is a very strong case indeed for ensuring that when these transactions are being pet through, there is some regard to the compensation paid by the public when the industry was being nationalised. I support the Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord may be able to accept it.
4.48 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: It is quite true that subsection (6) was inserted by the Government in another place in an effort to go some way towards meeting the views of the Opposition who had, I believe, tabled Amendments with a similar object to that of the Amendment moved by Lord Wilmot Some of the Amendments put forward by the Opposition in another place, I seem to remember, went much further and sought to set the compensation price as an absolute minimum for resale. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring in the compensation value of the securities as one of the material factors which ought to be taken into account in deciding what

1119
would be an adequate consideration on disposal.
The Government really cannot accept that view. There have been a great many changes—as I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree—in the position of the industry and of individual companies since 1949, and the Opposition themselves, I must remind noble Lords, argued in another place that the compensation value ought to be no more than a very low minimum. To include this value as a material factor to be taken into account must inevitably suggest that the Agency ought to be satisfied if they get the compensation value, or at least should be satisfied with this unless they could show cause why there should have been a specific increase.
In some cases, of course, the compensation value will be relevant, and in those cases the Government will have regard to it. But in many cases the value of companies will be much greater, and in those cases it will not be in our interest for the purchasers to be able to quote the Statute as against the Agency. The Government are advised that if this phrase were included the Agency would be less able to obtain the proper price for the securities and assets that they would be selling. This can hardly be the Opposition's intention, or what the noble Lord has in mind. I am sorry that we cannot see eye to eye with the Opposition on this Amendment. Nevertheless, I should like to take this opportunity of stressing again as firmly as I can the Government's most earnest intention of obtaining fair and adequate prices. The chief objection to this Amendment is that it would hamper the Agency in securing those prices.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: In view of that statement and of the advice which the noble Lord has received and passed on to us, I feel that it would be in the public interest to withdraw the Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us in such plain language that in most cases the value of the assets has gone up since they were acquired, owing to the excellent management of the Iron and Steel Corporation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Other financial powers of Agency]:
LORD SILKINhad given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1) (a), after the first "company" to insert "the majority of." The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that we have had a discussion on a point analogous to this, I do not propose at this stage to move this Amendment.
LORD OGMOREhad given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "to a substantial extent." The noble Lord said: Since my noble friend Lord Silkin has not moved his Amendment, I cannot move mine, which in a sense is dependent upon his.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Enforcement of certain provisions by injunction
29.—(1) No criminal proceedings shall lie in respect of any contravention of a requirement imposed under section six of this Act or any breach of the duty imposed by section eight of this Act, but civil proceedings shall lie, at the instance of the Board, for an injunction restraining any person—

(a) from providing or procuring the provision of additional production facilities without the consent of the Board in a case where such consent is required under the said section six, or

(b) from charging for any iron and steel products prices greater than those determined by the Board for those products under the said section eight, in breach of his duty under that section,

in like manner as if the said requirement or duty were a contractual obligation of that person to the Board.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "civil," and to insert:
"Without prejudice to any criminal proceedings,"
The noble Lord said: As Amendment No. 54 is preparatory to No. 55 and the case I want to make is on No. 55 rather than No. 54, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that they should be taken together. The purpose of the Amendments is simple. It is to provide a more effective remedy against certain breaches of the Bill, particularly of the provisions of Clauses 6 and 8.

1121
Clause 6 deals with the provision of additional facilities with the consent of the Board, and Clause 8with the fixing of maximum prices. The Bill contemplates that certain producers may commit breaches of both these provisions, and certain remedies are provided. In my view these remedies are inadequate.
First of all, let us see what these breaches may be. Clause 6 deals with the case of a person whose application for permission to increase facilities has been considered by the Board and refused, on the ground that it would be against the public interest that those facilities should be provided. There is provision for an appeal to the Minister. If the Minister has upheld the Board it might happen—and this is the case we contemplate in this Amendment—that the person concerned would nevertheless be disposed to go on with the provision of those facilities. That is a contingency which the clause in the Bill recognises, because it provides a remedy—the Board may apply to the courts for an injunction and restrain the person concerned from carrying out the proposed work. Similarly, under Clause8, the Board may fix maximum prices and the case which is contemplated in Clause 29 is that of a person who sells products, the prices of which have been fixed, above the maxima. Again the machinery for remedying this is an injunction. We consider that those remedies, while they may be adequate and appropriate in certain cases, are inadequate in others.
We consider that these offences are in the nature of criminal offences and ought to be dealt with accordingly. We are not suggesting that in every case a breach should be dealt with as a criminal offence. We are content that there should be an option on the part of the Board to decide for themselves whether they should prosecute or deal with the matter by way of injunction, and our Amendments provide for that. There may be cases of innocent misunderstanding, or cases which can be dealt with appropriately without resort to legal process at all. There may be cases where an injunction would be a suitable remedy, and we are proposing that that should be left in the Bill. But there may be other cases of a grave nature where people deliberately flout the provisions of this Bill with a view to making profit, where the only
1122
appropriate method would be by way of criminal proceedings.
Particularly in dealing with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I imagine is to reply, I must always qualify what I say by adding that perhaps this Amendment does not do what I hope it will do. But at least it gives a clear indication of what is intended—that is, to create a new offence which the Board can utilise. It is not as if this Bill does not provide for offences: it does. In a number of clauses, the breach of their provisions is treated as a criminal offence. Curiously, even a failure to comply with a notice requiring information, which in my view is a much less serious matter than carrying out works without the permission of the Board or charging more than the maximum price, is treated as an offence, under Clause 15 (6). And in this very clause there is a similar provision for treating as a criminal offence failure to supply information. It seems to me rather absurd that if the Board ask you for information on the question of overcharging, or for the purpose of enabling them to deal with Clause 6 or Clause8, and you do not give them the information, that is a criminal offence; but that if, having given them the information, you then flout those clauses and charge more than the maximum price, that is not a criminal offence. I am sure the legal mind of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will revolt against that kind of inconsistency, and that he, at any rate, will be glad to make the Bill consistent, so that both the failure to give information, as well as, after having given the information, the failure to carry out the purpose for which the information is sought, should both be treated in the same way.
I need only refer to one or two analogous cases where there is no doubt that a criminal offence has been committed which are provided for in the law of the land. We have failure to comply with building restrictions, which I submit is a similar kind of offence to that involved in a breach of Clause 6. A person may be carrying cut building operations in defiance of the decision of the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Would the noble Lord say to what building restrictions he refers, and made under what authority?
LORD SILKIN: I am referring to the restriction on building and the requirement to obtain a licence from the Ministry of Works. Any breach of that is an offence. The same thing applies, of course, to contravention of price-fixing regulations—food prices, and so on. The poor butcher who charges one penny extra on his meat is liable to be prosecuted. But the iron and steel producer who charges an extra few shillings or pounds per ton on his steel is dealt with by way of an injunction.
I feel that an explanation is required as to why there should be this discrimination. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will say that in the one case the regulations which permit of the prosecution are made by a Government Department, and the offences are in respect of regulations made by a Government Department, but that in the case of this Bill that is not so. But there are cases where price regulations are made by the Minister. Under Clause 8 the Minister has power himself to fix maximum prices. The clause as it stands does not create a criminal offence, even when the Minister himself has fixed the maximum price. Moreover, under Clause6, the provision of facilities, the person desiring to provide those facilities makes his application to the Board, in the first instance but if he is refused by the Board, he has the right of appeal to the Minister, and, of course, the Minister may refuse. Even when it is a decision of the Minister, and not of the Board, he is still not subject to the treatment which the poor person is subjected to for refusing to give information.
In further answer to the point made in another place, that this is a breach of something done by the Board, and not by the Minister, I may say that if you refuse to give information, not to the Minister but to the Board, you may be charged with an offence: and you may be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. That is not a breach of anything required by the Minister, but a breach of a requirement by the Board itself. Similarly, in this very clause there is provision for an offence being committed where a person gives false information to the Board—again, not to the Minister. Therefore, in my submission,
1124
the distinction is not whether the offender is committing a breach of something required by the Board or by the Minister. Even where he is doing something which is a breach of something required by the Board, he is, under other provisions, committing an offence. Therefore, I submit that it is right and logical, and in the public interest, that where persons commit serious breaches of either Clause 6 or Clause 8, they should render themselves liable to a prosecution, as well as to the possibility of an injunction. For those reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("civil") in line 4 and insert ("Without prejudice to any criminal proceedings")—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the first time that I have taken any part in the discussion of this interesting Bill. I am sorry that on the first and only occasion on which I do take part I am unable to say anything which will be acceptable to noble Lords opposite. This is really a rather startling and novel proposal. I think on both sides we are anxious to assert the importance of Parliamentary control. Particularly on questions of delegated legislation are we anxious to assert that there should be Parliamentary consideration and scrutiny of any rules made by any body to which a power to make legislation is delegated. We are even more emphatic about that when there is any question of penalty, and especially when that penalty may be the penalty of imprisonment. For I believe it would commend itself to noble Lords on all sides that our fellow citizens should not be put in jeopardy, in peril of their liberty, by a determination, a rule or regulation, or anything you like to call it, which has not been submitted to the scrutiny of Parliament.
It may be that you can find certain analogous cases—though I do not think those to which the noble Lord referred are analogous. I do venture to suggest, however, that it would be altogether wrong to give to this Board (whose powers noble Lords opposite would circumscribe in various ways, rather on the footing that they require a good deal of supervision and looking after) the power to make certain determinations, and then to say that those determinations, although they are not subject to any

1125
scrutiny, or subject to Parliamentary scrutiny only at a remote distance, may yet put a man in peril of his liberty if he disobeys them. That is something which cannot possibly receive the support of Her Majesty's Government or, I should venture to think, of noble Lords opposite.
Certain analogies were offered by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and one in particular in regard to price-fixing regulations. But, surely, price-fixing regulations, as we know them now, are laid. You can pray against them and they are subject to control. But here you have determinations made which will be under no control and for which even the Minister is not primarily responsible. How can it be right to make such a thing the subject of a penalty involving the loss of liberty? Her Majesty's Government cannot possibly make themselves responsible for such a measure. It is not as if it were in any way necessary. I rather anticipated that, either in another place or here, the measure which we have adopted might be subject to criticism as putting too stringent an obligation upon the iron and steel industry. I thought it might be said that it was rather a novel experience that they should be deemed to have entered into contractual obligations with the Board and I thought that that might be the subject of criticism. But that has passed and I think that this somewhat novel experience is based on some precedent in the Monopolies Act.
Having accepted that, I ask your Lordships to accept also that it is thoroughly efficient. Upon this matter I venture to speak with some authority and experience, and I daresay that nothing would be more effective to ensure the determination of the Board being observed by those who are interested than the knowledge that quickly—because your Lordships will not go back to Bleak House or anything of that kind—in the Law Courts, an injunction can be obtained if there is a breach of the provisions. Let us see what that involves. An injunction must be obeyed, and, if it is not, there can be an enforcement of the order by sequestration of the whole of the assets of the company which has refused to obey the order. This is a most powerful sanction which is already contained in the Bill, and there is no need that there should be this further sanction of a criminal penalty.
1126
I would remind your Lordships of this. A valid criticism was made in another place of the Bill as it was originally drafted. It was pointed out that considerable profits might have been made by excess prices being charged before proceedings were taken. That was recognised as a valid criticism, and in addition to the sanctions which were already contained in the Bill the new subsection (4) was inserted by which all extra profits so illegitimately obtained might be sequestered for the benefit of the Board. That was a valuable suggestion which was adopted by the Government; so that in addition to the powerful sanctions which you now have, you have procured that the profits, if any, made by the offending firm are taken away from them. I have dealt shortly but I hope not discourteously with this problem. To my mind it raises a very serious question. I would venture to say this finally. Every other Amendment which has been put forward, whether accepted or not, I would have accepted rather than this, because the other Amendments go maybe to the purpose and object of the Bill, but this creates a far-reaching precedent which I should be most reluctant to see upon the Statute Book. Accordingly I am afraid that I cannot advise Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: We are in rather a peculiar position here. I am afraid I have not verified my references at all and of course I accept what the Lord Chancellor says. But in all these price fixing powers surely an order that is made is always laid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hesitate to say a thing like that without having looked at the Book. I think it is a general practice, but in any case the Minister is immediately responsible to Parliament. He can be questioned at once.
EARL JOWITT: I would not assert to the contrary—indeed, anybody who asserts anything about all these Defence Regulations without being very sure of his ground is a very foolish man indeed. My feeling is this. I do not like having price-fixing powers unless those price-fixing powers have to be obeyed. The corollary may well be that the price-fixing power should be made by a Minister and should be promulgated by an

1127
order. It is the fact that in the Amendments we moved earlier we sought to give the price-fixing power to the Minister and to say that it should be made by order. I think we were perfectly right, because either you have a price-fixing power or you have not. But at least this is plain: that if you have price-fixing powers they should be observed. I cannot recall—I may be wrong—any single case of price-fixing powers and maximum prices in which the failure to observe those maximum prices is not a criminal offence. It may be that there are cases where the orders have been laid, and, if so, let them be laid here. But I think it is a bad principle to authorise elaborate price-fixing powers and then to say to a fellow who disregards them and charges higher prices, "The worst that can happen to you is that you can be brought before a court if anybody finds out what you are doing, and, of course, you must obey the injunction." I quite agree that if an injunction is obtained the fellow would indeed be in peril if he did not observe the terms of the injunction. It is true that the judge who would then obtain cognisance of the matter might order that in addition the miscreant should repay his ill-gotten gains.
There is really no particular reason why anybody should observe these maximum prices for the first time. Like every dog, he is entitled to his first bite. It is only when he has had his first bite and been discovered, and had an injunction granted against him, and then is brought before the court which granted the injunction, that these things happen to him. From what the Lord Chancellor has said, I hope that the noble Marquess will now see how wise we were in our generation in moving the Amendment that the Minister should fix these prices and that he should do it by order. If only we had had our way then, the whole of the objections which the Lord Chancellor raised would have gone by the board and we should all be happy; we should all have what we want. Let us hope that when we come to Report stage the noble Marquess, who has listened to the argument of the Lord Chancellor and has realised the strength of our case, will see fit to meet us on that Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Lord has dealt with certain parts of the
1128
case I made. I should be grateful if he would explain to me how it comes about that, in spite of what he says, it is still an offence under this Bill for a person to fail to comply with a notice requiring him to give information to the Board. There is no order involved there. Parliament has never approved the request for information, and even the Minister has not approved it: yet under Clause 15 (6) it is an offence. A similar offence is created under Clause 29 (5). There, again, Parliament has never approved the requirement to give information, nor even necessarily in the case of Clause 25. It may be the Minister has. Nevertheless, in both those cases it is an offence, and it is an offence not against something of which Parliament has approved but against something which the Board itself has requested. If that is the case, what is the difference between that and what we are asking for?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is really seeking to be too logical. It is perfectly reasonable for Parliament to say that information shall be given for a certain purpose, and that if the information is not given then the person who fails to give it has committed an offence. That is quite specific. But where you are giving a wide power to make determinations, as in Clauses 6 and 8, I think that Parliament is entitled to know what those determinations are. There is something quite specific about saying, "You shall give information," for Parliament knows exactly what is required by giving information. It seems to me that it may be very near the line, but at any rate it is on the right side of the line. Parliament can say what is required. But you go over the line when you say, "Make this or that determination and then it shall be a criminal offence if it is not obeyed." If that does not satisfy the noble Lord, the proper satisfaction for him would be the elimination of that other part of the clause which creates the criminal offence.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
EARL JOWITThad given notice of an Amendment, after Clause 31, to insert the following new clause:
"32. Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on or

1129
iven to any person, other than a company to which section four hundred and thirty-seven of the Companies Act, 1948, applies, may be served or given by leaving it at or sending it by post to his place of business or, if he has more than one, his principal place of business."
The noble and learned Earl said: I must apologise for my youthful exuberance and enthusiasm, in that I attempted to move this Amendment too soon. It is a wholly admirable Amendment, but, if I may, I should like to move it in an amended form. I will move it with these additional words at the end:
"Provided that nothing in this section applies to any notice under Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to this Act."
If I may move the new clause in that form, I think it will satisfy the requirements and will be a useful addition to this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
"32. Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on or given to arty person, other than a company to which section four hundred and thirty-seven of the Companies Act, 1948, applies, may be served or given by leaving it at or sending it by post to his place of business or, if he has more than one, his principal place of business.
"Provided that nothing in this section applies to any notice under Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to this Act."—(Earl Jowitt.)
LORD MANCROFT: The youthful enthusiasm and exuberance of the noble and learned Earl is wholly justified. This Amendment was a fine enough Amendment, even as it stood on the paper, but the additional words of the noble and learned Earl have made it well-nigh perfect, and Her Majesty's Government are very willing to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Iron and Steel Activities]:
7. The production from iron or steel of bright bars or of hot-finished tubes or of hot-finished pipes.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved to add to Paragraph 7: "or of wire." The noble Lord said: The harmonious note which seems to have
1130
marked the concluding stages of this debate may well continue for just a few minutes more. I shall be glad if the Government find themselves able to agree to this final Amendment. As your Lordships are aware, the term "iron and steel industry," which runs like a refrain' throughout this Bill, covers the activities described as in the Third Schedule; where any part of the industry is not included in the Third Schedule, this Bill has no relation to it.
Noble Lords will see that the industry is described in considerable detail, beginning with primary processes, the quarrying and mining of iron ore, which goes on through various other processes such as smelting and rolling, and then on to the finished product. I will not weary your Lordships with a recital of those processes. Finally comes the production of iron and steel bars, hot finished tubes and hot finished pipes. There is one other product which I suggest should be included, and that is wire, which is made, as your Lordships know, from rods specially prepared for that purpose. It so flappers that wire, in its various forms, is the, raw material of a considerable range of important industries engaged in the making of fencing and other things. The supply of wire from time to time tends to be restricted and short; and it is very desirable, looking to the future—and not perhaps the distant future—that the Board should be able to cast their beneficent influence over that section of industry which deals with the production of wire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 44, at end insert ("or of wire").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
LORD MANCROFT: I should have liked to accept this Amendment, not on its technical merits but if only by way of compensation to Lord Wilmot for having inflicted so much of my oratory on him during the last few days. But it cannot be so—again for practical reasons. I admit that the matter is not an easy one—indeed, it is very difficult to know what should be included in this Third Schedule and what should not. The Government have given the most careful consideration to the boundaries of the iron and steel industry over which the Board should exercise supervision. The question is a complicated one, and the

1131
line of demarcation is a very difficult one to draw. But the Government have reached the conclusion that as most of the wire drawing firms are not steel makers, the Board's production and supply supervision should end at the wire rod stage and should not extend to wire drawing.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Can the noble Lord say what is the proportion of the total output of wire made by steel makers and, alternatively, by firms who are not steel makers?
LORD MANCROFT: No, I am sorry: I have not the information available. Let me give reasons why the Government have made this decision. The wire drawers are not producers of iron and steel, or users of iron and steel making raw materials, but purely convertors; and in the main they are not part, but customers, of the steel industry. Wire drawing is associated not so much with steel making as with a wide range of end products. Its raw material is wire rod, and the Government's view is that the Board's supervision should stop at the wire rod stage. It is merely a matter of convenience that the wire makers are associated with the Wire and Wire Rod Conference of the British Iron and Steel Federation, and that the continuation of the war-time price control has been carried on by the Iron and Steel Division of the Ministry of Supply. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will be familiar with that.
The next reason—and I think it is a very important one—is this. Wire-making is one of the industries on the fringe of the iron and steel industry which are regarded as more akin to the engineering industry. I do not, of course, want to be dogmatic about it since it is to some extent a matter of opinion. Similar cases, which are also excluded from the Third Schedule, are drop-forging, cold drawing of tubes, structural steel, bolts, nuts and screws. The wire drawers should be in the same position as other users of re-rolled steel—that is, that they should rely on the Board to see that the steel industry produces the right types and quantities of steel which they need for making wire and wire products.
Those, I think, are the practical arguments. The Board's general duty under
1132
Clause 3 requires them to promote the "adequate supply of iron and steel products" and that includes wire rods. Thus, if any consumer was unable to obtain the supplies he needed, it would be open to him to approach the Board. If the Bill had to cover every product where there were fears that adequate supplies might not be obtainable, then the Third Schedule would obviously become very extensive indeed. Wherever the steel industry projected into other industries—for example, bridge-building and drop-forging—there would be a case on these grounds for extending the Schedule. There again, I do not want to be dogmatic about this. I realise that the difficulties of finding where this borderline should be are acute. I appreciate that there may be force—indeed there is force—in Lord Wilmot's argument. It is not quite "six of one and half a dozen of the other other:" I think it is seven on my side and five on his. That does not alter the fact that I admit that the five exist on his. I hope that he will agree that the seven are on mine and will not press his Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: No wire-pulling!
5.33 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: There are one or two technical considerations which perhaps I might put to the noble Lord, in order that the balance of five to seven may be slightly tipped in my direction. The supply of wire rod, as the noble Lord says, is part of the duty of the Board. Wire is made from wire rods, and it happens that a considerable proportion of the total national output of wire is made by the makers of wire rods. My fear is that the consumers of wire, who for many years hitherto have had the protection of the Board or the Minister, or some regulating body, will have no kind of protection if the producers of wire are unable or unwilling to supply them. It is in just this situation that the Board are useful.
I do not want to press this point unduly, because it is a purely technical machinery point; but if the noble Lord will look at subsection (3) of Clause 3, he will see that it says:
"In this Act, the expression 'the iron and steel industry' means—

(a) the activities included in the Third Schedule…"

1133
Secondly, the next subsection gives the Minister power w increase the number of things brought in under the Bill. I think I am right, however, in saying that he would have no power, even if he found it necessary, to bring wire within the Schedule. I wonder whether the Government would consult, between now and the next stage, with the users of wire to find out whether my fears are justified. If they find that they are, or could be, and if the Government are still unwilling to add "wire" to the Schedule—though I would prefer that they said they were willing to do so—perhaps they will so amend subsection (3) of Clause 3 that it will be competent for the Board or the Minister later on to include wire among the products brought within the purview of the Board. This is not an unimportant matter. There are substantial industrial interests concerned with this vital interest, the supply of their raw material. It has to do with important agricultural supplies for fencing and protective coverings, and any kind of shortage of wire will be a very serious thing for agriculture. It is most important that, at any rate, somebody should have the power, in the case of need, to bring the regulation of wire within the purview of the Board
LORD MANCROFT: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. As he rightly says, this is a technical matter and I, alas! am no technician in this matter. I cannot give him a promise to do what he wants me to do, but I will make certain that what he has said is given careful consideration; and if, by
1134
any chance, I am wrong, others will put me right. I can do no more than that. I quite appreciate the importance of this point. In fact, I may mention that my right honourable friend the Minister went so far as to examine a factory himself to see with his own eyes the actual problem which faces us. I tell the noble Lord that to assure him that the Government do appreciate the seriousness and importance of the problem.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his accommodation, for his courtesy throughout this long debate and, if I may be allowed to say so, for the remarkable grasp he has shown of this most technical matter in connection with which many of us have spent a much longer time than he has. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 10 last discharged, and Bill committed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock