Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert fifty."
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."This matter is one that has been carefully discussed both in the House and in Committee and in our view it would wholly frustrate the work of the Commission in running an efficient long-distance road haulage service if this Amendment were accepted. What it seeks to do is to permit a road haulier left outside the Commission's operations to run to a distance of 50 miles from his base without any permit from the Commission, whereas we have said in the Bill that the correct distance should be 25 miles. Twenty-five miles from a base represents a very generous view of the work of a local road haulier. It is our object in the Bill to leave the small haulier outside the scope of the Commission's activities, and that he is able to go up to 25 miles from his base is, in my view, a reasonable and generous provision. Moreover, the House earlier this evening accepted the view that the Commisson should be entitled to purchase all firms whose operations were predominantly over 25 miles from their base. It would, therefore, I suggest, be illogical that, having accepted that view, the House should accept the Lords Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper—that a firm should be able to operate up to 50 miles from its base without a special permit. There would be an immense area of overlapping between the Commission's services and the road hauliers' services, and that overlapping would in our view be bad because it would prevent the integration which we believe nececssary. Proper integration means economic working which will enable the Commission to run unremunerative services and to do all sorts of things which it could not do if there were such competition, and the chaos and anarchy which would result from a large number of firms trying to do the same job. For that reason primarily, we ask the House to reject the Amendment. One other argument is that the road hauliers themselves—or anyhow, a large number of responsible leaders—when they put forward a policy for the proper integration of the road haulage industry and its better conduct in the future, suggested that the local haulier—the small man with one vehicle—should be confined to an area not of 25 miles, but 20 miles from his base. That was their proposal. We say that distance is too short, and make 25 miles the limit. Over 25 miles, any haulier can take work provided he gets a permit, and that permit will always be given where the Commission cannot do the work itself. We therefore think the provisions of the Bill are reasonable, that the Lords Amendment would make the work of the road haulage organisation of the Commission impossible, or at any rate impossible of successful performance. For these reasons, we ask the House to reject the Amendment.
I think the House has seized the difference between this Amendment and that which we were discussing some two or three hours ago. Then we were discussing the test under which an undertaking would be nationalised. Now we are discussing what limitation will be placed on those road haulage undertakings which are left outside the attack of nationalisation. Every argument which I adduced on the last Amendment, as to the unfairness and undesirability of the test which it is sought to apply, that is, the complete failure of such a distance as 25 miles to apply either to the Metropolitan area, the industrial areas, central Scotland, or the rural areas, applies to this condition also, and to the position in which the road hauliers left outside nationalisation are placed. I want without enlarging on the same points, to take up the hon. Gentleman where he says it would only frustrate the work of the Commission. That is a large claim which is even more unfounded than most of the claims put forward by the Government tonight.In the first place, the Commission are to have the somewhat unusual and certainly unfair and unfortunate right of being judge in their own cause. A person who wants to go over the 25 miles distance does not have to apply to the licensing authority to settle matters. He has to get the permission of his trade rivals. That puts him in a remarkable and unfair position, but it does not stop there. The Commission are to have the right to compete with those road hauliers who are left outside nationalisation with at least two further advantages. They will have the right to provide long-distance services, but in acquiring long-distance services they will be bound to have acquired a number of short-distance vehicles at the same time because of the composite nature of the undertakings. Therefore, they will be competing with those who are left and with the right to carry not only over short, but over long-distances and the inestimable advantage that this will create. In addition to that, in taking over the railway vehicles and those owned by the firms and companies which are subsidiary to the railways, they are again taking over vehicles whose work is largely short-distance and special traffic work. I speak from memory and if I am wrong in a slight percentage, and it will be only a slight percentage, I hope that the House will excuse me. Pickford's work is, I think, 95 per cent. special traffic and short-distance work, and that shows again how the Commission are to get an enormous number of vehicles by which they will be able to compete on the most advantageous and unfair basis. To say that the Commission in that position are going to be frustrated—for that is the claim of the hon. Gentleman—because those road haulage undertakings that are left are to have their distance extended from 25 to 50 miles is simply not playing with, but abusing words. Twenty-five miles is a ridiculous distance to limit a road haulier over any aspect of our national carriage by road that one cares to take into account. Especially when he has not, at the moment, merely to compete with others in the same line of business, but to compete with the octopus of the Con-mission, with its special advantages and with the tyrannical dice loaded in its favour. The hon. Gentleman has tried to put forward another argument. He has tried to say, "Well, we have beaten you on the question of the test, and, therefore, you ought to give in to us on the rights of those who are left." We entirely fail to be convinced by the logic of that argument, or to be over-awed by it. We say that, whatever it is they take. If we want in this country a proper and flourishing road transport industry we have not only to do justice to those who have built up that industry with such courage in the past, but we have to provide a system which will give reasonable service to the people who need it. For that we must have a road haulage service which will be of proper local application and carry out decentralised work for the people who need it. There is only one thing which will give us a good road transport service in this country, or in any country; and that is, to have the right vehicle, with the right driver, at the right place, at the right time. Once again—and I put it to the House with every confidence and with all the vigour that I possess—we can only get that from a decentralised service with true local application. We shall only get it if we have a small unit service; and we shall only get a good working small unit service if we give our local hauliers a chance. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to rally to the aid of small road hauliers.
To limit the remaining hauliers to a radius of 25 miles is extremely unfair. It does not require much imagination or knowledge of this country for one to realise the tremendous difference between a distance of 25 miles in the country districts, such, for instance, as those which I represent, and 25 miles in the towns. In my part of the world the roads twist about here and there, so that there are few occasions when I visit my constituency when I am riot more than 25 miles from my operating centre. although I have not left the Division Nearly all the major towns are separated by a distance of more than 25 miles If this Amendment is not accepted it will mean that hauliers will have to make sure that their drivers do not, in fact, go more than 25 miles from their operating centre. It will be extremely difficult for those drivers to know when they are just inside, or outside, that distance, unless every driver goes round with a pair of compasses and a map measuring the distance. Very often, to get from one point to another, it is necessary to make a long detour.Very early in these discussions the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement which I thought was extremely misleading, and, although we interrupted him, he made no attempt to correct it. He said that under the new system road hauliers would have an area of 2,000 square miles in which to operate. But he forgot to Say that there are a large number of road hauliers around the coast who will have nothing approaching that area; who, if they are lucky, will have something like half of it. There has been no previous occasion to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. It was raised upstairs and we met with curious arguments from the Minister. What he told us was:
Then he went on to suggest that if one had incomplete equity, it did not matter how unfair the position. Apparently, because one cannot have fairness, it does not matter if one haulier has only half of what the other has. In these coastal areas not only is the distance about half of what it is elsewhere, but the population is more sparse than in the inland districts. This is a most unfair provision. It simply does not work out in these coastal districts and the Amendment ought to be accepted."If we went round the coast and extended the radius, we would not get equity in any way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March, 1947, col. 969.]
Before I launch upon any questions to the Front Bench, might I ask if somebody is going to answer what has been said previously, because we have spent a considerable time asking for information and there has been no answer at all. Shall we have some reply to the important points put forward? Let me take the case which the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind. He said that if anybody operated more than 25 miles there would be damage to the Commission. What does he mean? I think I know what he means. I think he means that the Commission—this great new commission—will be open to the competition of one of the free road hauliers. Well, we are not so much concerned with damage to the Commission as with damage to the public. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how this thing is going to work out?A haulier has decided under these complex provisions to be a short-distance haulier and he is left in. But he can only operate 25 miles from his centre and a large number of his customers, for that reason, cannot be served. He may have to sell his lorries. In the course of time—and this is what the Parliamentary Secretary wants to happen—the Commission will expand, subject as it is to no competition, and it will take over these customers. But in the meantime there will be a period of considerable dislocation. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any plan for dealing with those customers who are cut off? I hope somebody will answer these points, also, about the coast towns, raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Di£by). It is time some answer was forthcoming. There is a strong and substantial point in this matter, for there are hundreds of thousands of these operators around the sea coast of Britain. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members opposite would not make such curious noises in their sleep. If only they would get up and contribute to our discussion! I was saying there are large numbers of these operators round the coasts of Britain. Their case ought to be put in the House of Commons and, above all, it ought to be answered in the House of Commons. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say on what basis of justice or logic he should give the sea-coast operators only half the area he gives to anybody else?
The Amendment will not make any difference to them.
It would make a very considerable difference to them. If the area were extended by 25 miles, at least the sea-coast operator would have some sizeable area in which to operate. If the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) wishes to address the House upon this matter there is really no earthly reason why he should not do so: I am tired of standing on my feet. We were discussing some little time ago the definition of long-distance and short-distance hauliers, and the factors which should be taken into account in determining whether a man should be deemed to be a short-distance man.The Parliamentary Secretary addressed to the House a long argument, saying he had gone into the matter most fairly, and had come to the conclusion that a fair definition of short-distance haulage was, "Not more than 40 miles altogether, but as far as one liked inside the 25 mile limit." Can he tell me why more onerous conditions than that are imposed on the haulier once it is decided he can operate within such short distance haulage? He—or it may have been the Minister —argued at some length what he thought was a fair definition of haulage, which was something more than the 25 mile limit. He did not contend on that occasion at all that everybody who operated outside the 25-mile limit should be treated as a long-distance operator. Within that short distance he was more generous than that. He said the operator could travel, not only 25 miles, but as far as he liked in it. He could go outside it, provided that at no time did he travel more than 40 miles. That having been decided, on those terms, for the man as a short distance, why does he not allow him to travel 40 miles? Why does the Parliamentary Secretary make the conditions even harder for the man who is left to operate? There is no possible justification for that. The conditions should be at least as generous on the operating side as in determining whether the distance be long or short. I think some explanation is clearly indicated upon that matter. I am going to sit down [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall not if hon. Members would rather I did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I do hope I am going to get an answer. Unless somebody does rise to give an answer on this occasion I hope some of my hon. Friends will continue the Debate.
It is impossible to let this Amendment go past without pointing out how extremely important it is to Scotland. It applies to Cornwall and other lonely regions; but it is immensely important to parts of Scotland, and, above all, I say frankly, to my own constituency, where we have Forfar, the richest agricultural area in Scotland, with a fine firm operating transport there. The produce of the Orkneys, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire, Forfar, has to be transported into the cities for distances exceeding 25 miles, and transport operators on short distances will be obliged under the Bill to get permits. The reason why one speaks on this particular Amendment is that even though 50 miles might not be a big figure, it is better than 25. Twenty-five miles seems to me, as far as Scotland is concerned, a hopeless figure; 50 would be a great deal better. I would emphasise that very strongly.
I must ask now for an answer to the two questions I put to the Government in the recent discussion. The first relates to coastal areas. Feeling is very strong in the coastal areas and if the Minister would come down to the coastal areas in my constituency I shall be pleased to show them to him. But just deliberately not to answer my question is an insult to them. The other question is this: How are these regulations going to be implemented? Have the Government thought them out or not? What is going to be the effect on the police? An enormous burden is going to be placed on the police force. It is going to lead without doubt, to a considerable waste of manpower. I want an explanation of how these regulations are to be enforced? Is the Minister going to have cards, checks and work tickets? If he is to use work tickets, I can assure him he will find it will entail a colossal amount of work.
There used to be a time when this was a Debating Chamber. It appears that now it has turn ed into something quite different. When constructive suggestions are made from this side of the House they are merely greeted with cheers and cynical laughter from opposite side of the House. It is a travesty of Parliament, which is intended to legislate, to try to produce a well-shaped Bill, to have that sort of conduct from the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman's argument resolved itself into one point—"We cannot give way, because if we do we shall be unable to stand up to competition." That was the sole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He dared not give way because we should be faced with competition which we would not be strong enough lo stand up to."I want to deal with the question of the coastal areas. It is a very simple problem which does not seem to have impressed itself on the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is a mathmatical problem: a semicircle is half the size of a circle. I wish I could make the Gentleman opposite understand the position where you have a coast line area of 25 miles. It would appear to be a most unfortunate thing that in my Division of Brighton the people who are drivers of lorries are not able to drive them into the sea. The coast means that their area is precisely half that of a person 25 miles inland who is able to drive in all directions. The hon. Gentleman did not at any time attempt to deal with that situation. It is one of enormous importance, certainly to thousands of transport owners around the whole of the coastal areas. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal with it because he has got no answer to it. It is time he gave in. No arguments have been put forward by anyone supporting him. One realises that they do not know what the Debate is about. At least the hon. Gentleman knows what this Bill and Debate are about, and if no one behind him puts up any arguments the onus is on him and I hope he will answer.
I have very considerable sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. Every time I have listened to him he gets more and more frightened of his own scheme. Every time he opens his mouth he tells us of fears of competition and overlapping. He knows that the machine they are setting up cannot compete with anything on the road at the present time. He has now learned that, and yet he insists, with the colossal majority behind him, on this point, which is almost imbecile in regard to location and distance. Just now he told us that the 25-mile limit was a wonderful thing and that whoever had it could go north, south, east, and west. There is a town of considerable importance as a port in Cornwall called Falmouth, where it is not a matter of going one way or another. It is cut off by two rivers, on the South and West and the South-East. Before one can get coal to the populous area in the centre of the county one has to go 20 or 30 and only by one practical route to the north; in other words, the area of delivery is far less than one half and not much more than one quarter.Take the case of Plymouth. There is no one here to speak for it tonight but I must point out the unfortunate position of this town because it is completely cut off by the sea, They cannot go south. I suppose the sympathetic Parliamentary Secretary would then say, "You can have a duck ' and take it out to the Eddystone Lighthouse," or some such nonsense of that sort. That is the sort of thing he is offering, and that sort of thing is the ministerial idea of transport. I believe there is not a single individual on the benches opposite who would not rather employ his next-door neighbour than a Government Department if he had a free choice. I am sorry I cannot say a great deal to please Members opposite. I do not think the Minister is as frightened as his Parliamentary Secretary because he does not realise how bad the Bill is. The real grievance which many of us feel in regard to this Amendment is that it leaves a gap between the time when the new Ministry is set up—which may take years and it may well be a long time before it is working properly —and the time when the efficient private enterprise industry which we know today is abolished. I appeal once more to the Minister to give us some concession. He has not really given us very much. I have, so far, been dealing with neighbouring constituencies because the Members representing them are not here to deal with their problems. Now I want for a moment to turn to my own constituency. Large numbers of hon. Members opposite have visited it and have benefited from being there. Our difficulty, too, is that we are completely cut off. Before we can get our goods right into the centre of Devon or to Brixham we have to hire a lorry from some mysterious body which is going to be placed somewhere—though no one knows where—but by the time we get that lorry the stuff will have been sent back, which will be absolutely in keeping with the Government at the present time. My hon. Friend said that he hoped we would divide on this subject. I hope we shall, and I hope that in this really desperate situation which threatens us that we shall hear something from some of the Scottish Members. How in the world am I to get help if my lorry breaks down 40 miles from a station? It might well take the Govern- ment weeks or months to get help there. That is a simple illustration of what will happen under this system. It is too much to expect that we shall hear anything from any English Socialist Members, who, apparently, are not allowed to speak, but perhaps some of the Scottish Socialists will have the courage to state their views on this matter. We might even hear from a Welsh Socialist.
I should like to give the Minister another opportunity to give some reply to the reasoned arguments which have been put before the Government in favour of this Amendment. It is surely scant courtesy to the House and to the very large number of independent, hard-working people who have put their life savings into their business to give them no sort of a reply, whatever. Why should they not be entitled to carry on their business as they could within the 50 miles' limit, because they will find great difficulty in carrying it on within the 23 miles' limit? Why was the figure of 25 selected? What is the virtue of 25 which has been retained in the Bill?
It is the Minister's lucky number.
It is likely that the Communist Party is quite right when they say that it is the Minister's lucky number. Recently when we were discussing another figure, namely, making it 80 instead of 40, the Minister said that the only reason why that figure of 80 had been chosen was because it was double the figure 40. He argued that, therefore, it should be rejected. The only argument advanced in favour of 25 is that it is a quarter more than the figure of 20, which is the only other figure he had in mind. Now that is no better answer than the answer he rejected in his own argument. What is the virtue of this figure of 25? I do ask the Minister to give some reply to this point. I also think the Parliamentary Secretary should be afforded an opportunity of clearing up the misunderstanding his previous remark must have created. In reply to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), he made it quite clear that a haulier would be able to go 25 miles north, south, east and west from the operating centre. If the hauliers in my cons- stituency have an operating centre at Bognor Regis they cannot go 25 miles south. They would end up halt way to France, and what is the good of that? I think the right hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily misleading all these seaside hauliers. He said quite deliberately they would have 2,000 square miles in which to operate. Obviously, that is intended to mean on land. It is perfectly clear that seaside operators under this Clause cannot have the area which he said they were to have.May I put one further argument before the right hon. Gentleman? I venture to differ from some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House in believing that the British haulier who has built up his business and put his livelihood and savings into that business is going to allow himself to be put out of business by the Minister, the Transport Commission or any Government Department. He is going to find a way round the position. He is going to make a living not within the law, but by evasion of the law. I am prepared to have a small bet with the Minister that he will succeed. It will make it much easier for the efficient administration of the road haulage system if he is limited to 50 miles and not 25. What will happen will be the setting up between the normal centres of transport, such as, London and Brighton, London and Wales, London and Bognor Regis, of intermediate transmission stations where independent hauliers coming to the end of their operating distances, will meet independent hauliers centred in another operating sphere at the end of their radius, and transfer their loads from one lorry to another. Within the provisions of the Bill they could continue their service and continue it more economically and more efficiently than any service set up by the Commission, but it would be more economical and more efficient if that transmission could take place at the end of 50 miles instead of at the end of 25. In the interests of efficiency, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
I do think we should have some answer— [Interruption.]
I do not know w hat the cheers are for. I was only waiting for hon. Members to finish putting their points before I rose to answer this Debate. It seems to me that we can confine ourselves to only one of the arguments. But I must ask leave of the House before I can speak again. The points which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite have not really been relevant to the issue we are debating. One Member after another argued that it was grossly unfair to hauliers in seaside towns, that they should be confined to the limit of 25 miles provided in the Bill. But if the Lords Amendment were accepted and the 25 miles became 50 miles, then, obviously, there would be exactly the same disparity between seaside towns and inland towns as there is now. Therefore, the arguments which have been put forward with such vigour—and they are interesting and important arguments—are quite irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
There is no reason why, if we halve an area because the sea takes half of it, we should not allow a seaside town to have 100 against the 50 of the inland town.
That may be so, but it is not the Amendment we are discussing. It may have been discussed on Report or in Committee, but it is not before us now.
You guillotined it.
As the matter has been raised I would like to make two brief points. It would be quite impossible to make provision just for seaside towns, because so many of our major towns, including London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff, and many others, are seaside towns, and a very large proportion of the hauliers are naturally in those centres. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have made special provision for areas where there is some peculiar difficulty, or some local reason why the Commissioners should grant permits more easily. In an Amendment moved in another place by the Government the House will see that we have met that point as far as it is possible to do so. It is quoted on page 13 of the Amendments, and is as follows:
"Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate."
When that Amendment comes before us, will the hon. Member explain it fully to the House, so that we can have a fairly wide discussion on it? It is very important, and some of us think that it does not go quite far enough.
I am explaining it to the House at the moment.
On a point of Order. Is it in Order to discuss now a later Amendment?
Yes, if it has some association with the matter under discussion, which I gather it has.
I was pointing out that the -Bill specially gives discretion to the Commission, and suggests that they should exercise this discretion. Otherwise most of the arguments seem irrelevant to the issue before us. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) says that we are not being so generous to the road haulier in this provision, in which we give him 25 miles to operate without a permit, as we were in a previous Clause which defines the long-distance and the short-distance road hauliers for the purpose of acquisition. We say in Clause 39 that we consider a man a short-distance road haulier if he operates less than 40 miles in an area 25 miles from his base. In this Clause we are saying that he can go anywhere he likes within 25 miles from his base, up to 50 miles in fact from the centre. We are, therefore, being more generous here, if that is the way to put it, than we were in the earlier Clause. I say again, that 25 miles distance from the base is a generous estimate for the work which the normal local road haulier would want to do; that the Commission has the power—which I am certain they would exercise on a substantial scale, wherever it was appropriate—to give hauliers permission to go beyond that distance; and we draw attention to the desirability of giving permission to extend that distance where local hauliers need it.But if the local haulier were allowed to go up to 50 miles from his base without any permit he would be creaming off much of the essential work which the Commission is ordered by Parliament to do to carry out a proper long-distance road haulage service for the community and for the industry of this country. That responsibility is being placed fairly and squarely on the Commission. Having given the local haulier the duty and monopoly of work in his own area, it would be quite grotesque to say that any road haulier could undertake long-distance work, creaming off what traffic he wants and leaving the Commission the job of providing the most unremunerative services. A proper job cannot be done that way. Hon. Members opposite say—and I can quite understand their view—that one can only get a proper road haulage service if one leaves it to small units. They said, further, that they were not concerned with any damage to the Commission, but only with the damage to the public. We say the welfare and interests of the Commission, charged with this duty of carrying on long-distance road service work, is identical with the welfare of industry, and that any damage done to the Commission by unfair competition or by outsiders creaming off work will be damage not only to the Commission, but to the industries of this country. We say this work can effectively be done only with the fusion and integration which every person and section in the transport industry knows is necessary and has been demanding for years. That can only be effected if the long-distance road services become integrated through the work of the Commission with rail operations, when the Commission becomes responsible. Taking that view, we disagree with the arguments of hon. Members opposite, who want to limit—and damage as much as they can—the work of the Commission in its road transport operations. They want to leave the work in the hands of the existing road hauliers. They can do that, but they will not get integration and fusion. They will get the same anarchy and chaos as has existed in the industry in the past. The purpose of the Bill is to get order in the transport industry, and that can only be obtained with a monopoly of road transport services and integration. The local haulier must be confined to a proper and reasonable distance, which is 25 miles.
the hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak, except with leave.
I trust that I have the leave of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Really, Sir—
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly correct. If the House gives him leave I have, of course, no objection.
I hope and I trust that that leave will be granted.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—It was extended to the Minister and—
I am afraid that. leave having been withheld, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot speak again.
The Parliamentary Secretary has chosen to reply to this Debate—if the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has anything to say to the House will he say it a little louder?
I was under tie impression that the hon. Gentleman had already spoken.
The hon. Gentleman's linpressions are incorrect. It would help if the Minister were to explain exactly hew these permissions in Subsection (2) are to operate. We must get the picture clear. so that—
On a point of Order. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that the hon. Member For Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has already spoken on this Amendment.
the hon. Member is in error. I have a complete none of hon. Members who have spoken, and the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is not among them.
Hon. Members opposite ale sometimes asleep and sometimes they wake up. This is really a serious matter, specially for the remote areas and the coastal towns. Are we to understand, first of all, that there is to be general permission for a particular haulier over the distance of 25 miles, or will it be directed to a particular load? I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that it is to be a general permission, in view of the fact that the operation is over rather wild country, in Yorkshire, or Torquay, or where the periphery or semi-circle influences the scope of the haulier's operation. Unfortunately, we find that the Commission has power at any time to vary or withdraw permission, and it makes the validity of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument very much less. The next point that arises is in relation to the particular load, as to whether the haulier will have to apply to the Commission for permission. The delay will mean that consumers will get worse service. The position is not clear, and we have not yet had an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. I gathered from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that it was on this Clause that they would make some concession about particular traffics; but in that Amendment they merely deal with certain localities. I would like to get a ruling from the learned Solicitor-General on the question whether, having drafted that Amendment to refer merely to particular localities, it is not really limiting this question so that the Commission cannot take into consideration special loads, such as milk in churns, or eggs—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about bacon?"]—I hope that some light will be thrown on this rather obscure situation. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has not thought enough about the public. That, I think, is the real difference between the two sides of the House—which is to come first? Which is the more important, the needs of the consuming public, or the convenience of the Transport Commission, which we hear is not to be presided over by Lord Latham?
I think the Parliamentary Secretary missed the point. His argument was, if I understood it—
On a point of Order. I suggest, Sir, that the question of the traffic from the coast towns cannot possibly have any bearing on this Amendment, and the Parliamentary Secretary found difficulty in giving a reply to this, because he had to refer to a subsequent Amendment. The Opposition raised an objection to that on a point of Order and if it was not in Order for the reply then to be given, is it in Order for the matter to be dealt with now?
I cannot agree with the hon. Member.
The hon. Member noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary was irrelevant and out of Order, but that does not prevent my putting my point to him. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that 25 miles to a coast town might be unjust, but 50 miles would also be unjust, and that the argument was, therefore, irrelevant. That is, roughly, what he said, but he does not apparently appreciate that 50 miles would be less unjust—
Tell us how it is unjust.
Perhaps the hon. Member, who is speaking while seated, will allow me to develop my argument. It would be less injustice because the operator in the coast town would have further to go, and would not be limited to 25 miles. He would have further to go, and his ordinary activities would be less restricted. The coast town operator whose livelihood is taken away would be better off on a radius of 50 miles, although that would be unjust compared with other operators if they go on a diameter of 50 miles. The advantage of this Amendment would be a lessening of the injustice. The Parliamentary Secretary rejected the whole thing by a piece of dialectic, and saying it did not apply at all.
Does the hon. Member not realise that the half of a radius, be it 25 miles or 50 miles, is still only half the radius, and that is the point which the Minister made?
Does my hon. Friend similarly realise that a quarter of half of the radius is equal to one-eighth of the whole?
This is very true, but there is, I think, no difference between us about that. The Parliamentary Secretary said the argument was irrelevant. If one said to any coast town operator, "Do you think the injustice caused by having a fixed radius would be ameliorated if you were allowed to go twice as far?" he would say he would have this Amendment. If it is acceptable to the coast town operator, that is an argument in favour of it. We cannot discuss whether it would be better for different radii to be given to different parts of the country; that would not be in Order. But it is in Order, I think, to say that this Amendment would be of immense benefit to the coast town operator, and that is why we are' supporting it on this side of the House. With respect, I would say that the Parliamentary Secretary did not treat the House with respect with his false dialectics. He should address himself, at this hour of the night, to serious argument. An hon. Member for one of the Scottish constituencies pointed out that a 25 mile radius in many parts of the country has no meaning—
That is what is wrong with the hon. Member.
It has no meaning because the operators are short haulage operators in areas where centres of consumption and production are more than 25 miles apart, and it must be remembered that no road operator can operate in a vacuum. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say, "Well, I agree that 25 miles, where the towns are 30 or 40 miles apart, is not of much use." If the trader places his van between towns he may go 25 miles to towns 50 miles apart. These are quite obvious points which have been made by people in the trade and industry, but which have not been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He never alluded to that argument. All he did was to repeat that the 25 miles was a fair and reasonable distance, and that if the 50 mile radius were allowed it would mean creaming off the profitable part of the road transport industry. He treated the Amendment which was passed in another place as a wrecking Amendment, instead of one which was made for the benefit of the industry as a whole within the limits of nationalisation. To benefit the industry as much as we can within those limits is all we can do now.4.30 a.m. The Parliamentary Secretary adopted the attitude that the object on this side of the House was to wreck the Commission, and take the cream off road haulage operations, so that nationalisation would not work. I should have thought it would work very much better were the 50 mile radius adopted. It would work better if the majority—or, at least, a great proportion—of the road haulage undertakings which are short road haulage undertaking were working within a framework of about 50 miles. In sea coast areas, and areas in which the big centres are more than 50 miles apart, the road haulage undertakings will have to change their character, in order to operate within these restrictive limits. That will make nationalisation work much the worse. The Parliamentary Secretary did not meet that point. He spoke as though those in another place were not responsible, and had acted to wreck the Bill; and he seemed to allege that the Amendment was designed to enable us on this side of this House to wreck the Bill. Does he realise what he is doing? He is saying that this nationalisation scheme is so fragile that the introduction of a 50 miles limit, instead of the 25 mile limit, would bring the whole thing down like a pack of cards. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that a larger limit than 25 miles would make the Commission unprofitable, then he does not know how the industry is conducted. I do not believe he has ever seen applications made for "A" and "B" licences; or, if he has, he has not understood them. The industry is not based on tiny routes of 25 miles, except, perhaps, in centres like Manchester or London. When applications are made for licences, and evidence of need is given, the basis is something like 35 to 50 miles. None of these technical matters was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to complain about the fact that not enough speeches are made from the other side. It is a serious complaint, because the whole basis of English Parliamentary life is that the Government and Opposition play a part in team work. It is one of the remarkable things about English Parliamentary life. If serious arguments on this side are met only by one person who is rather apt to repeat himself, and who does not address himself to the arguments—
That proposition has nothing to do with the Amendment.
I did not intend to intrude in this Debate.
Why do it?
If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear the reason. I had asked my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) to put one or two points to the Minister on which I desired some explanation. Unfortunately, the House has refused him permission to speak, though he very courteously gave way to the Minister. Therefore, I have to put these questions to the hon. Gentleman myself. I wish to develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who referred to the difficulties that exist in Scotland. I am very sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not in his place, but I am glad the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has just come into the Chamber, because he might be able to answer my questions.I want to allude to a very peculiar situation which exists in many parts of Scotland, where there are long and narrow peninsulas. There is Black Isle which lies by Cromarty, and is one of the richest agricultural areas in Scotland. Operators working in Rosemarkie would only be able to go to the end of the peninsula, and that is the only business they could do. That is the point on which I would like some assistance. The question I would like him to consider next is the case of Campbelltown, near the Mull of Kintyre, a promontory which runs north and south, and is very narrow. What happens to the livelihood of the people there?
Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct him? The Mull of Kintyre is not a promontory, and it does not run.
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has some knowledge of that part of the world. He is perfectly correct. I should have spoken of the peninsula. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his local knowledge, will assist the Government to reply to the very important point I am making.
What the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not realise is that if the Amendment he is supporting is carried, and the 50 mile limit is imposed, his lorry will rush into the Irish Sea.
The hon. Lady is quite mistaken. My lorry would run further north than it is permitted to go now. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has a very difficult constituency, and in the Isle of Whithorn a similar difficulty arises. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has in his constituency quite a large town which goes by the name of Helensburgh which has on one side the Gairloch and on the other side Loch Lomond. What is going to happen there? I hope I may have a reply to this problem which faces Scotland.
I think we should come to a decision now.
I ask the Minister to come, in his imagination, with me into my constituency, the greater part of which is in the Lake District, a sparsely populated area. The coast-line there is indented with many bays, notably one called the Sands, across which the coaches used to go when taking people to be married at Gretna Green. This is the question which exercises the minds of my constituents: how this special licence, which can be granted in special cases, would apply? If this Amendment were carried, and 50 miles were substituted for 25 miles, the journey round this bay, or the Sands, would be taken care of, but if 25 miles is the limit, then no haulier can do any business on one side of the Sands or the other. If it is said that he can get a special licence, does he apply for it in relation to the journey, or each period of time, or each traffic, or whether he gets a licence over an extended period for the whole of his business? This is a vital matter, and I hope an answer will be given.One solution would be to give a licence with a permanent period attached to it. No businessman can work from week to week if he does not know whether a licence is to be cancelled or withdrawn. The solution is to give a long-term licence because of the geographical situation of the haulier, or, alternatively, pass an Amendment so that a licence cannot be taken away. I prefer the Amendment, and I hope we shall continue to press the Government and even persuade them to agree to it.
I have not previously spoken on this subject, and I want hon. Members to realise that we are debating a very human question. The small lorry drivers we are talking about are human beings, some of whom no doubt voted for some of us on both sides of this House. I want hon. Members to think in terms of human beings. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how the test of definition of what is a small short-distance haulage is to be applied. The test—he will correct me if I am wrong—is one in which his officials will look at the records of the journeys of a haulier over a long period—I think he said a year—and that test will be what is statistically called the mode. One or more journeys may easily be less than 25 miles and one even over 50 miles, and the officer of the Commission will say, "What about this one of 50 miles?" The haulier may well reply "My mother-in-law is living in my house, and I could get her out of my house into a new one if I moved her and made that journey. That is why I went more than 50 miles in that particular case." The Commission would say, as I understand it, "That is right. You are a short distance haulier. Your journeys are round the statistical mode of 25 miles." The test for definition on the statistical mode is a different thing from what we are talking about in this case, because, here, we are talking about the limit on the longest journey that is about the peak, which is something entirely different statistically.4.45 a.m. In another place they have made a very good point on this Amendment, because a peak of 50 miles is probably the fair equivalent of a 25-mile mode. I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House do not think that if this Amendment goes through 50 miles will be obtained by the haulier for every journey. His mode could continue to be 25 miles, notwithstanding a peak journey of 50 miles. The Parliamentary Secretary. has asked what other system could he have. He has this Amendment of 50 miles, which, I submit, is thoroughly satisfactory to take for a mode of 25 miles. If he really wants to cover both mode and peak he can do it in the same way as he proposes for covering the test for definition. He could dearly have the situation reviewed from time to time to see that practice continued in line with the original test for definition. It is ludicrous to impose on somebody whose mode is 25 miles a peak of 25 miles. Statistically it is absolute nonsense, and it is for that reason I commend to the House this Amendment which has come from another place.
I should like to refer to the speech which the Parliament- ary Secretary made, because rarely has the House been given a better example of what Socialism will lead this country into than in those remarks. There is a poem which read something like this:
"Before the Romans came to Rye, of to the Severn strode,
Today there are right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that Front Bench drunk—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must withdraw that remark at once.
If right hon. arid hon. Gentlemen opposite had only given me time to finish my sentence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would have said that I understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side were drunk with power. Why do I say that?
Because the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say anything else.
On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having heard the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is going to withdraw, as you told him to? Is it not about time twat he did so?
The hon. and gallant Member's remarks when concluded had rather a different meaning from what they appeared to have originally.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman should sit down. I am not drunk; I am sober. Sit down!
A good many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are intoxicated by power today.
The time is almost five o'clock in the morning and we have just heard an hon. Member opposite talking about taking his mother-in-law 50 miles!
I really cannot be responsible for the hon. Gentleman seeing double and mistaking who I am—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be allowed, first, to make a remark that Members on the Front Bench were drunk and correct it facetiously, when he said the word "drunk," full stop? And then is he to be allowed to continue with drunken allusions by saying that my hon. Friend was seeing double?
On a point of Order. Would it be in order to reply in a manner which contains no sense and then, if I am rebuked. to give—
I really cannot have these personal animadversions. Hon. Members must preserve some order and dignity in our proceedings. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides to do so and to confine themselves strictly to the Amendments before us. The hon. and gallant Member will continue his speech and not repeat what he has already said
I propose to explain why I made the remarks I did.
It would he tar better for the hon. and gallant Member not to explain, but to proceed with his speech, making it relevant to the Amendment before us.
That is my point. It arises out of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I made that remark with reference particularly to what he said about the monopoly we are setting up in this Bill in the Commission. It has always interested me what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would do with monopoly in view of what they have said so often in the past about it, and in particular their remarks about Tory misrule and other such phrases as that. The hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, came down and openly boasted that the Commission set up under this Bill is to have a monopoly and, what is more, that it is to have a monopoly which is deliberately to be shielded from any form of competition whatsoever. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish between a monopoly run by the State and a monopoly under private enterprise. [Laughter.] I see that my opening remarks are being endorsed every moment I go on.
I shall have to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to resume his seat if he makes further reference to his original remarks.
I would most respectfully point out that at that moment I was made virtually inaudible to hon. Members on this side, let alone on the other, by the—as I think—frivolous laughter as a result of my having said that hon. Members opposite apparently did not appreciate the difference between a monoply run by the State and a monopoly run by private enterprise. That apparently was the cause of wild hilarity. I say that if it is the intention under this Bill to set up a Commission which is to be a monopoly protected by the State from any form of competition whatever, then any charges that hon. Members have ever levied against monopolies under private enterprise are far outstripped by the charges that will be brought upon the State management of this industry. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this.Do they really consider that this overlapping of which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke is all the danger that they make it out to be? Do they really consider that any road haulier is going to stay in business if he is having to compete with a really efficient State system which can undercut him at every corner? Is he going to struggle on limited by the terms of this Bill as it will be if the Amendment is not accepted? Do they conceive that any road haulier is going to carry on very long under those conditions? He may make a gallant attempt at the beginning, but I do not think he will carry on for very long. I believe that by this Amendment we can ensure that there is fair competition with the State monopoly, fair competition as judged by the only people who are entitled to judge these matters—the people who want to use the transport. I believe that to turn down this Amendment will be most injurious to the Bill. I believe that the Amendment, when it was passed by another place, greatly improved the Bill. I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he meant when he said that under Clause 39 the Government were being less generous than they were under this Clause. Under Clause 39, as I understand it, a vehicle can go within a 25 miles radius up to 40 miles, whereas under the Clause we are discussing it seems to me that a vehicle can only go 25 miles from its base. I cannot see how that can be considered to be more generous than the provision of Clause 39. It is precisely the other way round. I still maintain that if the Government are to make this nationalised transport a success they would do well to encourage all the competition to it they can. There is no better way of ensuring efficiency. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite so often flaunt efficiency in the face of the House as being the end of these nationalisation Bills, but there is no surer way of undermining any efficiency likely to come out of this Bill than deliberately eliminating all forms of competition and creating and directing a State monopoly.
I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will respond to the invitation which has been extended, and say something on the points raised regarding Scotland [Interruption]. if only the Parliamentary Secretary had not risen just before my hon. Friend spoke, a further intervention in this Debate, which has gone on for a long time, might have been avoided. My hon. Friend alluded to certain places in Cornwall and Scotland in which, because of their configuration, road hauliers will be seriously jeopardised if this quite modest Amendment of the Lords is denied.My constituency has a very long coastline. I will not attempt to estimate its length: I hate inaccuracies; there I differ from my hon. Friends on the other side. There are many arms and legs in my constituency, and one may say that it has two exposures, south and west. I will give an instance of how road hauliers on the sea-board facing west will suffer, and will take the ancient burgh of Stranraer. Members will readily recall that great prominence attained by Stranraer during the war, and the great part it played in bringing the war effort to a successful conclusion. [Interruption.] Six million members of the Armed Forces passed through Stranraer during the war years. Road hauliers there will be seriously affected, because there are two promontories to north and south. The road hauliers will be completely bottled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—My remarks would not be received with such hilarity on both sides of the House if it were not for previous effusions.
Was it my road hauliers to whom my hon. Friend referred as being "bottled?" If so, I do hope he will withdraw that.
I was not alluding to my hon. Friend's road hauliers. I was explaining the very great difficulties which road hauliers will experience because of promontories to the north and south.It is not only the hauliers in the coastal part of my constituency that I am concerned about, though I am, of course, very concerned about them. A good Member of Parliament is concerned with the welfare of all his constituents, with all people, big or small, whoever they may be, whatever party they may belong to. Perhaps we shall have a reply from the Front Bench in relation to hauliers in the coastal parts of my constituency, and in other constituencies. It may be that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) will say a few words about the coastal towns of Scotland, which he so well knows. This is a very serious mater affecting the lives of many people who will suffer by the obstinacy and obduracy of the Minister in his refusal to accept the Amendment. By acceptance he could save the whole situation with regard to the distribution of milk from my constituency. He has turned down the Amendment so I must tell him again that milk distribution will be seriously affected there. Let the Minister make a deathbed repentance for it is quite manifest that even if we were to substitute 50 miles or 25 miles in a constituency such as mine the hauliers would be in a very serious plight indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) knows a good deal about these matters. He has instanoN1 the extreme difficulty that he will have,.to miles from a station, in bringing his wool to market When we go to the Division Lobby I hope that we shall have a sufficiently large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who support the Government voting with us to ensure that the Amendment is inserted in the Bill Especially do I hope that even the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who was good enough to include a sneer in his remarks, as he often does, will be in the Lobby with us. Certainly we would he failing in our duty -o our constituents if we were to allow the Motion of the Minister to disagree with the Lords Amendment to go unchallenged.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Division No. 328.]
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)||Orbach, M.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Grey, C. F.||Paget, R. T.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Grierson, E.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Griffiths, W. D. (Rother Valley)||Palmer, A M. F.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Gunter, R. J.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Guy, W. H.||Paton, J. (Norwi|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Hale, Leslie||Pearson, A.|
|Baird, J.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Peart, T. F.|
|Balfour, A.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Piratin, P.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J||Hardy, E A.||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)|
|Barton, C.||Haworth, J.||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Price, M. Philips|
|Beswick, F.||Herbison, Miss M.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Binns, J.||Hobson, C. R.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Holman, P.||Randall, H. E.|
|Blyton, W. R.||House, G.||Ranger, J.|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Hubbard, T.||Rees-Williams, D. R.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Richards, R.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton. W.)||Robens, A.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Irving, W. J.||Rogers, G. H. R.|
|Brown, T. J. Ince)||Janner, B.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Jay, D. P. T.||Royle, C.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Sargood, R.|
|Burke, W, A.||Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Scollan, T.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Segal, Dr. S.|
|Carmichael, James||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Sharp, Granville|
|Chater, D.||Keenan, W.||Shurmer, P.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Kenyon, C.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Cocks, F. S.||King, E. M.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Coldrick, W.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Collins, V. J.||Kinley, J.||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Lang, G.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Lavers, S.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Crawley, A.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Solley, L. J.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Leonard, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Daggar, G.||Levy, B. W.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Daines, P.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Logan, D. G.||Stamford, W.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Longden, F.||Steel, T.|
|Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lyne, A. W.||Stephen, C.|
|Deer, G.||McAdam, W.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Delargy, H. J.||McAlister, G.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Diamond, J.||McGhee, H. G.||Swingler, S.|
|Dobbie, W.||Mack, J. D.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||McKay, J. (Wailsend)||Symonds, A. L.|
|Dumpteton, C. W.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McKinlay, A. S.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||McLeavy, F.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||MacMlllan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Maepherson, T. (Romford)||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Ewart, R.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Fairhurst, F.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Farthing, W. J.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Field, Capt. W. J.||Mathers, G.||Tiffany, S.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Mellish, R. J.||Timmons, J.|
|Foot, M. M.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Forman, J. C.||Mikardo, Ian||Tolley, L.|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Mitchison, G. R.||Usborne, Henry|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Moody, A. S.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Gallacher, W.||Morris, P (Swansea, W.)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Murray, J. D.|
|Gibbins, J.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Watson, W. M.|
|Gitzean, A.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Weitzman, D.|
|GlanviUe, J. E. (Consett)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||O'Brien, T.||Walker, G. H|
Question put. "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 87.
|Wells, W. T. (Walsall)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)||Yates, V, F.|
|Wed, D. G.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.||Willis, E.|
|Wilkes, L.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Wilkins, W. A.||Wise, Major F. J.||Mr. Michael Stewart and|
|Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)||Woods, G. S.||Mr. Popplewell.|
|Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)||Wyatt, W.|
|Agnew, Cmdr P. G.||Hare, Hon. d. H. (Woodbridge)||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Haughton, S. G.||Prescott, Stanley|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hope, Lord J.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Beamish, Maj T. V. H.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Birch, Nigel||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bossom, A C.||Langford-Holt, J.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Bower, N.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Linstead, H. N.||Spence, H. R.|
|Byers, Frank||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Clarke, Col R. S.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Teeling, William|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Touche, G. C.|
|De la Bere, R.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Turton, R. H.|
|Digby, S. W.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Marshall S. H. (Sutton)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Mellor, Sir J.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter||Molson, A. H. E.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||York, C.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.||Nicholson, G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gage, C.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Major Conant and|
|Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.||Osborne, C.||Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.|
|Grant, Lady||Pickthorn, K.|
|Grimston, R V.||Pitman, I. J.|
Question put accordingly, "That this the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Division No. 329.]
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Chater, D.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)|
|Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)||Chetwynd, G. R.||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)|
|Allen, A C (Bosworth)||Cocks, F. S.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Coldrick, W.||Gallacher, W.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Collins, V. J.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Colman, Miss G. M.||Gibbins, J.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B.||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Gilzean, A.|
|Baird, J.||Crawley, A.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)|
|Balfour, A.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Daggar, G.||Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)|
|Barstow, P. Q.||Daines, P.||Grey, C. F|
|Barton, C.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Grierson, E.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Beswick, F.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Deer, G.||Gunter, R. J.|
|Binns, J.||Detargy, H. J.||Guy, W. H.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Diamond, J.||Hale, Leslie|
|Blyton, W. R.||Dobbie, W.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.|
|Bowden. Flg.-Offr H. W.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Hardy, E. A.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Braddock, T (Mitcham)||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Haworth, J.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)||Harbison, Miss M.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Ewart, R.||Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Brown, T J. (Ince)||Fairhurst, F.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Bruce, Major D W T.||Farthing, W. J.||Holman, P.|
|Buchanan, G||Fernyhough, E.||House, G.|
|Burke, W. A.||Field, Captain W. J.||Hubbard, T.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Carmichael, James||Foot, M. M.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Forman, J. C.||Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.|
The House divided: Ayes. 247; Noes, 87.
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Irving, W. J.||O'Brien, T.||Swingler, S.|
|Janner, B.||Orbach, M.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Paget, R. T.||Symonds, A. L.|
|Jeger, G (Winchester)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.E.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Pargiter, G. A.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Parkin, B. T.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Thomas Ivor (Keighley)|
|Keenan, W.||Pearson, A.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Kenyon, C.||Peart, Thomas F.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|King, E. M.||Piratin, P.||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Kinley, J.||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Tiffany, S.|
|Lang, G.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Timmons, J.|
|Lavers, S.||Price, M. Philips||Titterington, M. F.|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Pritt, D. N.||Tolley, L.|
|Lee, Mist J. (Cannock)||Proctor, W. T.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Leonard, W.||Pryde, D. J.||Usborne, Henry|
|Levy, B. W.||Randall, H. E.||Vernon, Maj W. F.|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Ranger, J.||Walker, G. H.|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Rees-Williams, D. R.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Logan, D. G.||Richards, R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Longden, F.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Watson, W. M.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Robens, A||Weitzman, D.|
|McAdam, W.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Wells, P L. (Faversham)|
|McAllister, G.||Robertson, G. J. (Berwick)||Wells, W T (Walsall)|
|McGhee, H. G||Rogers, G. H. R.||West, D G.|
|Mack, J. D.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Royle, C||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N W.)||Sargoed, R.||Wilkes, L.|
|MeKinlay, A. S||Scollan, T||Wilkins, W. A.|
|McLeavy, F.||Segal, Dr. S.||Willey, F. T (Sunderland)|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Shackleton, E A. A.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Sharp, Granville||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W||Shurmer, P.||Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Silverman, J (Erdington)||Williams, W. R (Heston)|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Simmons, C. J.||Willis, E.|
|Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)||Skeffington. A. M||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Mathers, G.||Skinnard, F. W||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Smith, C (Colchester)||Woods, G. S|
|Middlelon, Mrs. L||Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)||Wyatt, W|
|Mikardo, Ian||Snow, Capt. J. W||Yates, V. F.|
|Mitchison, G. H.||Solley, L.||Younger, Hon Kenneth|
|Moody, A. S.||Sorensen, R. W.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Murray, J. D.||Sparks, J. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Nally, W.||Stamford, W.||Mr. Michael Stuart and|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Steele, T.||Mr. Popplewell.|
|Nicholls, H R (Stratford)||Stephen C.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Grimston, R. V.||Pickthorn, K.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbrige>||Pitman, I. J.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Haughton, S. G.||Pools, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Hope, Lord J.||Prescott, Stanley|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig O|
|Birch, Nigel||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Bower, N.||Lambert, Hon G.||Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Langford-Holt, J.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Law, Rt. Hon R. K.||Ropner Col. L.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Byers, Frank||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Linstead, H. N.||Spence, H. R.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Corbelt, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Sludholme, H. G.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Teeling, William|
|Crowder, Capt John E.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|De la Bère, R.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Digby, S. W.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Dodds-parker. A. D.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Turton, R. H.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte||Mellor, Sir J.||Ward, Hon. G. H.|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Molson, A. H. E.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Morrison, Maj. J. S. (Salisbury)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||York, C.|
|Gage, C.||Nicholson, G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Galbraith, Cmdr T D||Noble, Comdr. A H P||Commander Agnew and|
|Grant, Lady||Osborne, C||Major Ramsay.|