In page 33, line 44, at end, insert:Whole-time member" means a member who is required by the terms of his appointment to devote himself exclusively or mainly to the performance of his duties as a member of the Board, and includes such a member notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Jack Jones
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "or mainly."
I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the subsequent Amendment in my name and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, to leave out from the first "Board" and to add:subject only to the performance of such public or other unpaid duties as will not occupy more than an insignificant part of his time.The reason why we on this side seek to insert these Amendments in the Bill must be apparent to the whole House. During the Committee stage we stressed the importance of the work of those who are designated in the Bill as whole-time members of the Board and we suggested to the Government that these members should be people who actually give their time wholly and completely to the services of the Board.
1300 The House will remember that we argued for a considerable time about the tremendous range of duties of the Board. I remember quoting a White Paper and pointing out that out of 23 paragraphs in it, 20 referred to the duties of the Board in relation to planning, redundancies, capital investment, distribution of materials, relations with the Schuman Plan, price fixing, education, research and a hundred and one other jobs of a less important character. We always argued, and we still argue, that the duties of this Board merit the whole-time members giving their full time exclusively to the services of the Board.
The Lords Amendment which we seek to amend is drafted in somewhat contradictory terms. It starts by referring to a "whole-time member," but ends with the words:… notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment.I am at a loss to understand how a person can have the designation of "whole-time member" and, at the same time, have the facility of paid appointment to some other board or be able to give services to other organisations. We seek to make a new interpretation, to read:subject only to the performance of such public or other unpaid duties as will not occupy more than an insignificant part of his time.We seek to have an interpretation which will give the Board the full-time service which its importance merits, but, at the same time, does not debar a person from doing public work. We have in mind a person drawn from the ranks of the trade unions or the Federation who, in his spare time, may be interested in local government, hospital management, or work of that description. We do not want the rules to be so rigid as to preclude a person who has spent his life in public service of that kind acting as a member of the Board.
We do say, however, that the work of the Board is so far-ranging and important that it would not allow a member to have a divided loyalty. I have read with interest, and I have not seen it contradicted, that the new chairman will be one who was chairman of the interim Board, that is Sir Archibald Forbes. I have read that he has had some conversations with Her Majesty's Government and that he did not want to give his final decision on 1301 this appointment unless certain facilities were given him. In other words, Her Majesty's Government are seeking to establish a position where a person—and I am not now speaking of the gentleman whom I have mentioned—could consent to serve on the Board while retaining appointments on other important boards.
We say that that is wrong. We believe that the work of this organisation is so important that a person so appointed should give his paid time exclusively to the duties which the Bill provides that the Board shall perform. I have tried to visualise the position of certain individuals as time goes on. None of us can be prophets, but we can assess public opinion, and we can now cast our minds back to recent results in certain parts of the country.
I do not want to rub it in, but I found that in my constituency, where there are so many steelworkers, the electorate were so "enamoured" of iron and steel denationalisation and of the Tory Budget that we have not a Tory, or a Liberal for that matter, on the local council. One can imagine a situation where a man drawn from a trade union might find himself with divided loyalty and undecided whether to continue to work for the Board in the national interest or to give more of his time to something else which might be considered ripe for nationalisation.
That would create a divided loyalty, and we believe that is wrong. I say that not only in regard to persons drawn from industry, but also those who are drawn from the trade union movement. In my opinion, such a full-time member should serve the national interest and not the interest of any particular section of the trade union movement. His job is to give full-time work to the Board, in the interests of the nation, the whole great trade union movement, and particularly those people working inside the steel industry.
There is a vast field to be covered— research, training, education, new entrants, redundancies, the allocation of raw materials—all of which have a direct effect on the continued welfare and happiness of the people in the industry. We suggest that this Amendment will satisfy everybody in that respect. It is the full-time members who will serve the public 1302 interest, because they are the people who will decide policy.
I have argued this point of view in another place—not the other place which is generally referred to here, but somewhere very remote from it—and have tried to see how this proposal will work. I can tell the Minister that the trade unions are extremely anxious that any person appointed from a trade union on a full-time basis should sever his connection with his section of the trade union movement.
We want to make quite certain that when this Board is appointed it shall— for the time it operates, be it short or long—give the greatest satisfaction to the people concerned. I was asked yesterday what was my personal opinion about a certain works which for some time has not been an economic proposition. This is the type of question which is now being asked. People are asking which particular works will be closed down, which will be continued and where new works will be sited. We want the best kind of organisation to be set up, and we think that our Amendment will do it, whereas if the Lords Amendment is left as it stands persons will have the opportunity of taking up so-called full-time appointments when they have obligations to other industries.
I do not want to be facetious or rude to anybody; that is not my nature; but I cannot conceive how it is possible to mix up the milling and flour industry and that of the dog biscuit manufacturer with the steel industry. The persons on the Board should give full loyalty to the steel industry and to no other. I do not want to belittle anybody. I have a great respect for those people who have done a big job of work for the nation, but we want to make sure that there can be no accusation that, as a result of divided loyalties, the industry will suffer and, following that, our national well-being.
It is important that we should make a decision which is in the best interests of the industry. I hope the Minister has given very careful consideration to this Amendment and that, in his present courteous mood, he will see the force of our argument and accede to our request with regard to what is probably the last Lords Amendments we have to consider.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment is concerned with the most important matter we have had to discuss this evening—important though the supply of tungsten, molybdenum and other questions have been. I earnestly hope that whatever the circumstances of any particular appointment may be the Minister will reconsider what is sought to be done by the Lords Amendment and accept our Amendment to it.
We all recognise that the Board have extremely important functions. We may differ as to how far they have sufficient powers for the purpose, but there is no doubt about the importance of their functions. They have to consider the question of a general review of the industry; production facilities, including the matters which we were discussing earlier today, emergencies and Government or similar actions to meet them; the determination of prices and, equally important, the raw materials and fuel to be procured and distributed for the industry.
Even right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have shown at times a certain reluctance to strengthen the Board's powers, would not deny that their functions are of the highest importance. They differ from us only in saying that their powers are sufficient to enable them to perform those functions. Let us take their view in this matter. What is the composition of the Board? It is to consist of the chairman and a certain number of members and, though the Bill does not provide a specific number, we were given some indication of what was to be the number of whole-time members.
I believe the expression "whole-time member" occurs only once in the Bill —in connection with the degree of independence which he has to have. On appointment he must not have any substantial financial interest in an undertaking of an iron and steel producer, and there are provisions to see that that state of affairs continues. This reference is contained in Section 2 (6). There may be other references which I have overlooked but it is in regard to this Section that the definition was introduced.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) that the experience of these boards, partly composed of whole-time members 1304 and partly of part-time members, confirms what one would expect from ordinary business experience, that it is the chairman and the whole-time members who constitute the policy-making element, and the part they tend to play compared to the part-time members is larger than one would have expected if one had not had experience of it.
It is too obvious to need argument. The responsibility that will fall on the full-time members—and the standard of attention and integrity required of them —must be exceedingly high. When I use the word "integrity," I am not suggesting that the kind of person to be appointed as a whole-time member is likely to be dishonest in any sense of the word. What I do mean is that it does seem sound in principle, especially when we are making appointments of this importance, to avoid putting people in a position where there may be some possible conflict of duties.
I see the Solicitor-General sitting there. He will recognise that that particular maxim runs through a great deal of our law, and that if we were appointing trustees we should first have to consider whether, in the exercise of their functions, they would be put in a position where there would be a conflict of interests or a conflict of duties. It seems to me to apply with full strength to appointments of this sort.
As the interpretation Clause is drawn, and read with this Lords Amendment, there can be some very remarkable results. First of all, let us take a man who is not, personally, a large shareholder or otherwise a proprietor of any iron and steel concern but who has an interest in it. He has an interest in the sense that he has served as a director. It may, indeed, represent a life's work and a life's achievement to him, and, before his appointment to the Board, he may have virtually lived for that particular piece of work. It is quite obvious that there must be such people. Let us assume that he is now to be considered for appointment as a member of this Board, as a whole-time member. What will he be required to do?
He will be required not to have a substantial financial interest. One does not know what his director's fees may have amounted to. No doubt, if he were 1305 to be mainly occupied in the business of the Board, he might be coining along with director's fees of £100, £200, £300 or £400 retained in the company in which he had served before. I should find it hard to say that that man, so far as financial interest was concerned, had a substantial interest, if that was all it was.
However, we can go beyond that. The company may pay him no fees to get him to sit on the Board. Or there might be a nominal consideration. In countries engaged in the last war—and if I select a particular currency it is only because it is the one commonly cited in this connection—there were dollar a year men representing, in some respects, large industries in some Government offices closely associated with those industries. We are bound to remember that there is a similar history in this particular industry, and when it was a question of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and even a question of the conduct of this industry during the war, there were certainly people engaged in supervising it for one purpose or another who had previously had a close, intimate, whole-time connection with some unit of the industry, and often reverted to that connection as soon as their public services were ended.
When we are considering the appointment of whole-time members of a Board of this kind it is absolutely vital to see that there is a clean cut in cases of that sort, and that a man who takes up whole-time service on the Board severs completely his connection with the industry. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say just now, as far as the whole-time members were concerned, that there was every possibility of trade union representatives taking that line. I am neither a trade unionist nor a steelmaster, but as an ordinary citizen I think that the same considerations should apply in the one case and in the other, and I believe that, as has indeed been the practice in the past, trade union officers taking up whole-time employment of this sort would and should sever their connection with the trade union, that the same rule should apply to both the goose and the gander and that the iron and steelmasters should do exactly the same thing and retain nothing whatever.
I pointed out that the Clause proposed from another place would allow, when read in conjunction with other provisions, 1306 a man to spend some of his time as what is quite falsely described as a whole-time member of the Board and a substantial part of it in some perhaps unpaid, perhaps low paid, directorial or similar activity in connection with his own company. That must be absolutely wrong. There can be no circumstances whatever that justify it. By the way, if anyone says to me, "What about his qualifying shares?" I would remind the House that they are very often lent for purposes of this sort.
I turn now to what seems, perhaps, a less obvious but equally dangerous thing, the case of a man who has an interest in some other industry or financial matters who is called upon to take up whole-time membership of the Board. We were given one particular instance. I am not concerned with that. Let us take some industry that at first sight appears comparatively unconnected, or wholly unconnected even in one sense of the word, with iron and steel. I do not believe that there can be any industry in this country which is really wholly unconnected with iron and steel. It permeates the whole industrial structure.
Whether it is a matter of building works, or whether it is a matter of containers to put things in, or whether it is a matter of the use to be made of products, one way or another I should be very puzzled indeed to find any single industry or occupation of importance of which we could say, "This has no connection whatsoever with the iron and steel industry and there could not possibly be any question of a conflict of duty there." I cannot think that that is the case. If we were dealing with a rather specialised industry that would not be true, but having regard to the way in which this particular industry in one form or another concerns and directly concerns every one of us and every industry I say that it is really wrong to suggest that there can be any complete independence between the two things.
Those are two points, and there is a further one. Let us for a moment leave wholly out of the question the matter of a conflict of interest or a conflict of duty. Let us look at it in quite another way. What we are asked to do is to say that "wholly" does not mean "wholly," because in plain English that is just what 1307 this means. We talk about a whole-time member and then say he is one if "wholly or mainly" devoted to his duties as a member of the Board. I have a constitutional dislike to defining something or another as the opposite of what it is, and I am quite certain that this place ought not to lend itself to that kind of verbal trickery. It is to be observed, of course, that it came from another place, and about their conduct in the matter I say no more.
"Wholly or mainly" is a very dangerous phrase. It can mean all sorts of things. I am not going to try to deliver a lecture on what is a whole-time member, but I happened to find a case where the question was about fishermen's earnings. That seems quite a long way from this matter, but the question was whether they were wholly or mainly dependent on their share of the fishing profits. These men were partly paid by way of fixed wages and partly by a share of the profits. The facts were that out of £12 a week £7 9s. came from the fishing profits, and the court which decided this question said quite plainly that "mainly" means what it says, and 51 per cent. is mainly.
I do not say that is a particular line of construction which would apply in every case, and I do not want to be involved with hon. and learned Members opposite into any technical discussions as to the niceties of it, but it is just as well to be clear what we mean when we are putting this kind of language into the Statute Book. A whole-time member means, for the ordinary person someone who spends the whole of his time on the job. We start by putting that aside and saying that it does not mean that, it means someone who spends the whole or the main part of his time on his job. If we are asked what we mean by the "main part of the time" on the job, I imagine we should be as much in difficulty as, in connection with another matter, the Financial Secretary found himself the other day when he was asked to define what "substantial" meant.
This kind of phrase in this connection and context is a shady sort of phrasing and tends to make people think that it conceals a shady sort of transaction. I am not saying that it does, but I am saying that this opens the door and 1308 appears to open the door to what if people were dishonest would be a shady transaction, and it is not right to make public appointments and the terms of public appointments depend on the honesty of particular individuals.
It is our business, I suggest, to draft a Bill of this sort in such a form that it is certain that the people appointed will be wholly devoted to the job which they are supposed to be doing in the whole of their time. If it is said, "You yourself have said in the Amendment that there might be a man spending an insignificant part of his time occupied on public or other unpaid duties," I say frankly to the House that I am not at all certain that these words were worth putting in.
We put them in because we wished to make it clear that we did not want to prevent people from doing jobs such as serving on a hospital management committee or even digging the famous garden so sedulously attended in his spare time by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). We do not mean to say that we require a man to devote the whole of his 24 hours to eating, sleeping, and doing this job. I would not mind particularly if that part of our Amendment were left out.
The substantial point is that we cannot in any honesty have a whole-time member wholly or mainly employed on this job and partly, perhaps to a substantial degree, working on some other job, which, though it is not in the iron or steel industry, may be a paid and remunerative one. Equally, we cannot have a man called on to do a job of this importance and employed and sent there on the footing that the whole of his time is required for the purpose, not giving the whole of his time to it. Let us be straight about this matter—when we say whole-time member let us have a whole-time member.
There are other part-time members. If the Minister has a particular blue-eyed boy in mind whom he wants to appoint to this Board, then, if he wants to appoint him for whole-time employment, let him do so; but if he wants to employ him for what I call main time employment let him call him a part-time member and engage him accordingly. Let us be straight and simple in our language about the matter; straight and simple in what 1309 we intend to do and, I hope, straight and simple in the appointments that are to be made.
§ Mr. Low
I think that it would be convenient for the House if I intervened now and told the House what is the effect, in our opinion, of the Amendments which we are considering and the Lords Amendment which forms the background to those Amendments. I quite realise that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had important considerations in mind which they wished to put to the House, and I hope that they will pardon me if I try to come down very much to earth and try to describe what is the effect of what they are trying to do and what is the effect of the Lords Amendment.
We are concerned here with the interpretation of the words "whole-time" members where they appear in this Bill, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering told the House, the only place in which these words appear in the Bill is in Clause 2 (6), but he did not seem to me to draw any conclusion from that very right observation which he made to the House, or to follow out the effect of the interpretation upon subsection (6) to which they refer. I should like to do that.
That subsection prescribes that the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board shall not have a substantial financial interest in any undertaking of an iron and steel producer—a safeguard inserted by this House on the initiative of hon. Gentlemen opposite and supported by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House.
The advantage of the definition of "whole-time member" which is incorporated in the Lords Amendment is that it strengthens this safeguard. Without it, as I will show, there would be in our opinion a possibility—and we have to deal with possibilities in legislation—of two loopholes. With it both loopholes are closed. I will explain what I mean.
The first loophole which is, it may be said, an improbable loophole is that the Minister, if he appointed a man to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board who holds an outside appointment with his permission, may not feel bound on making the appointment to apply the test 1310 of Clause 2 (6). The hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in talking to the House a short time ago about what he called his "main time" members, suggested that such a member should be appointed as a part time member, and I think he would agree with me that the safeguard in Clause 2 (6) does not apply to part time members.
The second loophole, which is not quite so improbable, is that a man who had been appointed by the Minister to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board, but who was allowed to have an outside appointment in addition, might claim that he was not a "whole-time member" for the purposes of that subsection and that, therefore, he was not debarred from acquiring a substantial financial interest in the steel industry. That is also a possible loophole. The Lords Amendment, which the hon. Member seeks to amend, closes this loophole—if I mix my metaphors I apologise for doing so— by extending the area of this qualification covered by Clause 2 (6). The wider the area of disqualification, the stronger the safeguard of the subsection.
The Amendments to the Lords Amendment would have the effect of narrowing that area and of re-opening both loopholes for they would not prevent the Minister, if he so wished, from appointing to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board persons who have outside paid appointments. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will grant me that the interpretation of the words in the Bill does not have the effect of preventing the Minister, if he so wishes, from appointing to the "whole-time" nucleus of the Board persons who have outside paid appointments. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the phrase "whole-time members" where it appears in the Bill, and the only place where it occurs is in Clause 2 (6).
The Amendments, if accepted, would merely provide that if the Minister did make such an appointment, even if he appointed as a member a man who drew £100 per annum for an outside appointment, the member would not come within the safeguard of subsection (6). Moreover, there would be no doubt that he did not come within it if the Amendments were accepted. On the face of the definition, such a member would be excluded from the operation of Clause 1311 2 (6) and thus excluded from the safeguard.
§ Mr. Mitchison
The Parliamentary Secretary has nearly caught his own tail and nothing which I say ought to interfere with that interesting process. Let me assure him that I realise that the Clause does not apply to part-time members. There is no obligation on the Minister to appoint any fixed number of whole-time and part-time members respectively. I appreciate all that. All I am saying is that if one has to do a job with three spades and five hoes one does not do it any better by having two spades and six hoes and calling one of the hoes a spade.
§ Mr. Low
If an appointment is made, as "whole-time member" of a man who is allowed to retain an outside appointment, surely it is desirable that the safeguard on which the House insisted at an earlier stage—the hon. and learned Gentleman waxed very eloquent about it, and we all agree with the importance of it— should apply. The curious thing is that, after all that was said about the importance of that safeguard, the Opposition Amendments which are now proposed not only weaken the safeguard as compared with the Lords Amendments but also weaken it as compared with the Bill when it left this House, when without any definition at all there was at least room for argument that a person of the kind we have been discussing was within the subsection.
As I have said, the Opposition and the whole House attach importance—rightly, in our view—to the principle behind the safeguard now inserted in subsection (6). If the Opposition understand the effect of their Amendments as we understand it, I cannot believe that they will really want now to weaken the safeguard which was inserted on their initiative. If they agree with me in the interpretation of their Amendments and of the Lords Amendment, I am sure that they will now withdraw their Amendment and accept the Lords Amendment.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)
Mr. Speaker, you and I belong to a profession which is constantly twitted with using the art of tergiversation, but I do not think I have listened for a long 1312 time to the expenditure of so many words on so simple and short an issue. The Minister, and several other hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, have overlaid the point with so many words that its central matter has been completely obscured.
The Parliamentary Secretary has got this thing completely wrong. He has not hit the essential nail on the point at all in what he has said. [Laughter.] All right then, he has not hit the nail on the head. He has given us an extraordinary excuse. I do not know whether he realises it or not, but it really is an extraordinary excuse. He says that the Lords Amendment will somehow or other aid Clause 2 (6). But Clause 2 (6) is miles away from the point that matters. All that subsection (6) does is to lay down a test, and it is a financial test. It merely represents a qualification as to the interest of the person who is to be appointed to the Board and is not a limitation as to time in any sense at all.
What the House wants to know is why this Amendment is to go into an interpretation Clause the purpose of which is for clarification and not for obscurity. The Lords Amendment as it stands says, in effect, that "a whole-time member" means that he is not a whole-time member. That is the plain, simple, and undeniable effect of its language. It is true that the expression "whole-time" can have a double meaning, and it is clear that it is intended to have a double meaning in the context of this Amendment. On this point, one cannot bring in Clause 2 (6) to aid the point at all. Let us look at the Lords Amendment. It refers to a whole-time member. The phrase "whole-time" can mean, as it appears to do here, that a person who has a whole-time salary has only a part-time activity. It is not a question of a full-time job at all.
§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
That is certainly an example of a whole-time job with a part-time activity. That is exactly the sort of thing to which the Amendment refers. The first limb of the Amendment is as follows:'Whole-time member' means a member who is required by the terms of his appointment to devote himself exclusively or mainly to the performance of his duties as a member of the Board, and includes such a member"—1313 then follow these extraordinary words which absolutely destroy the meaning of what has gone before—notwithstanding that his appointment as a member of the Board may not be his only appointment.What is that? That is a plain permission to any person who is appointed a whole-time member, even if he has not got another appointment at the time, to get himself another appointment. The Lords Amendment says in the clearest language that he is still to be regarded for the special purposes of the Clause as a whole-time member even if he receives another appointment. Of course, that contradiction stultifies the whole position. One is amazed at finding that language of this kind is actually going into a statute. It is unbelievable that a Clause of this composition and language should be imported into a Statute.
I ask the Minister to shake himself up a little. After all, we are making legislation. The Minister ought to have a greater sense of responsibility and not try to pass this off by referring to Clause 2 (6) which, as I have said, is miles away from the point. That subsection is the only excuse that he has tendered to this House for this stultification of English language. [Laughter.] The Minister quite rightly laughs, because it is a comic Clause. I have not come across such a comic Clause for a long time.
I ask the Minister to assume a sense of responsibility in this matter. If he wants to adopt something of this kind he should try to express it in language which is clear and unequivocal and not to insult the headnote under which it appears. The Measure would be much clearer for the purpose of interpretation if this Lords Amendment did not go into the interpretation Clause at all. I therefore ask the Minister to look at this again and, in this respect at least, to try to make some sense out of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government were closing two loopholes. I suggest that in closing those loopholes they are opening the back door. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, if "whole-time" is to have the meaning proposed in this Lords Amendment, then a man working 51 per cent. of the time in this industry is a 1314 whole-time person. I wonder how that works out if it is applied to the people working in the steel mills.
If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) could be considered a whole-time worker in the steel industry by working for 51 per cent. of the allotted working week, I would agree at once with the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation of "whole-time." But of course that could not possibly happen. I suggest that he has not given a very good line of thought to the workers in the industry. Recently a number of trade unions—I have one in particular in mind—have suggested that they would like a shorter working week; they have been subjected to abuse of all sorts, and have been called unpatriotic and so on in many organs of the Press.
The Parliamentary Secretary is giving carte blanche to people who are to occupy what he and I consider to be very important positions to expect that, say, 22 hours a week is the allotted time to be worked by a whole-time person. If 22 hours a week is the amount of time which one can expect a whole-time person to work, will the Parliamentary Secretary say how much time one can expect a part-time worker to work? Is the definition of "part-time worker" one who has no need to turn up and work at all? If we accept "mainly" in the context in which the Parliamentary Secretary has used it, then we cannot expect any attendance at all from one who is employed purely in a part-time capacity.
I ask the Government to accept our Amendments which, despite anything the Parliamentary Secretary says, make quite clear that we expect a person who is appointed to an extremely important position of this type to devote the whole of his working week to this job. I should have thought that that is in line with what the party opposite have told us is the importance of this type of occupation. I suggest that to let it go out from this House that the Government are to appoint full-time people to be responsible for the Board and are not to expect them to work more than 22 hours a week is not good enough. I ask that our Amendments be accepted in order to give some encouragement to the people working 47 and 50 hours per week in industry to continue doing their full job of work.
§ Mr. G. R. Strauss
Before we close our debate on this matter I should like to make one or two comments. The Government have sought to justify this Lords Amendment by saying that it will close a certain loophole. It may or may not close a loophole. I doubt whether there was a loophole there of any importance at all. What I am quite certain of is that, by putting this Lords Amendment forward, the Government may be closing that loophole but they are opening a vast crater of possible mischief.
What are the Government saying by the definition Clause? It is the first time that such a definition Clause has been put forward in any measures for denationalising an industry now under public ownership. In all nationalised industries I think that, without exception, there are on the board or corporation a number of full-time members and a number of part-time members, and in the letters of appointment the full-time members are told that they are expected to devote all their time to the task.
I have not looked at all the Measures, but I do not think that there is a single definition Clause in any of them so far defining a full-time member, because it was obvious common sense: everybody understood it to mean that a man would devote all his time to the work for which he was appointed. Now, for the first time, we are told in this denationalising Bill that the men who are to be appointed full-time to this Board—and it is not only the chairman; there are to be several others—will devote most of their time, 51 per cent. to the work of the Board but that they are free, if they wish, to devote 49 per cent. of their time to other activities. I am advised—and I do not think there can be any doubt about it— that that will be the effect of this Lords Amendment.
The letter of appointment to such a person will say that he is to work full-time, but later, if someone offers him a job which does not take up more than 49 per cent. of his time he would be perfectly free to take it, and if any question were raised he could say "In the interpretation Clause it is stated that 'wholetime' means working mainly for this job. I am carrying out the letter and the spirit of this Measure if I devoted a good deal of my time to other purposes "—perhaps other remunerative purposes providing 1316 him with a bigger salary than he was drawing as a member of the Board.
I cannot help feeling that the Government know perfectly well that this is to be one of the consequences of inserting this new definition, and we look upon it as a very obnoxious consequence. It seems to me, indeed to all of us on this side of the House, to be not an isolated incident but part of the Government's general policy in this matter. We were told recently that the Chairman of another important Government Corporation, the Colonial Development Corporation, which should be a full-time job, has been told that he can now take other work as well if he wants to so long as the work for which he was appointed in a public capacity is his main concern. That is a most important and responsible job, and yet he is to be allowed to take other work as well. The "Sunday Express, "with which I do not often agree, attacked the Government last Sunday for the permission being given to Lord Reith to do this additional work. It was perfectly right to do so.
We stand strongly by the principle— and we warn the House and the country of the dire and evil consequences of this Amendment, which the Government are introducing for the first time in any Measure of this sort—when a man is appointed full-time to a public board or corporation, that man should devote all his energies to it, and should not be permitted and even encouraged, as he is by this new definition, to take outside and possibly remunerative work as long as it takes up only a minor part of his time. We say that that is all wrong and contrary to the public interest, and that that will inevitably be the effect of the Amendment which we are now considering.
We believe it to be the intention of the Government that it should have that effect, and we suspect that this provision was put in so that the gentleman who is proposed as Chairman of the Board, Sir Archibald Forbes, who has other industrial interests, will be enabled to continue to hold his existing directorships. Whether that is so or not, it will enable him to retain those existing directorships, and in future any full-time member of this Board will be able to hold directorships to which he will be able to devote 1317 part of his time. That is wrong and contrary to the public interest, and we think it is a great pity and shameful that the Government should introduce this important principle in another place and put it before the House at this late stage of the passage of the Bill. We intend to divide the House on the proposal.
§ Mr. Sandys
A number of points have been raised in this debate, which, of course, go very far beyond the scope of the Amendment, which was very carefully explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Before I deal in general with the points which have been raised, I should like to mention a pertinent issue referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). We can all agree with the hon. and learned Member that there must be no conflict of interest or duty in regard to the full-time membership of these important public bodies. He said that the "whole-time" members of the Board should completely sever their connections with the iron and steel industry, and that rule must apply not only to trade unionists but to the steel-masters, too. I should like to say straight away that I entirely agree with that statement, and that I am glad to have this opportunity to give an absolute assurance on that point.
There can be no question—and I said this earlier in our debate—of a full-time member who has a direct and continuous influence upon the affairs of the Board retaining any part-time appointment in the industry which it is his job to supervise. Therefore, I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an unqualified assurance on that important point. He and other hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) were a bit mixed up as to which end of the nail they would have to hit.
§ Mr. Sandys
They said it was impossible to define the word "mainly" in the Lords Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was as difficult to define that word as it had been difficult to define the word "substantial," about which we had some discussion earlier. I might remind him that the word "substantial" originated in the Amendment put forward by the right 1318 hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice).
There are difficulties in defining words, and if it is impossible to define the word "mainly" in the Lords Amendment, it is no easier to define the word "insignificant" which appears in the Amendment put forward by the Opposition to take its place. We must accept that there are certain words which it is not possible to define absolutely. In the last resort, the definition has to be left to the courts to decide. If everything were crystal clear and precise in legislation the hon. and learned Gentleman would be out of a job. Certainly, he would not be a whole-time barrister.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained, the Lords Amendment is concerned, in this Bill, with removing a small legal uncertainty in Clause 2 (6). I recognise the anxiety which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members about the wider issue of principle which they have mentioned, and I should like to say a word about this.
Incidentally, I am pleased and encouraged by the way in which one hon. Member after another from the benches opposite has referred to the importance of this Board and to the responsible functions which it will have to discharge; and that, to discharge those functions, it is essential for the members to devote their whole time to this work. At an earlier stage in our discussions we were told that the whole thing was a sham and that the Board would have nothing to do. Therefore, it would not matter whether the members were whole-time, part-time or no time at all.
I am glad that in the course of our debate hon. Members opposite have come to recognise the real and important functions which have been entrusted to this Board.
§ Mr. Sandys
I am coming to that in a moment.
As I have emphasised on many previous occasions, the authority and the effectiveness of the Board will depend to a large extent upon the standing and the 1319 competence of the members who compose it. It is particularly important that the whole-time members who will exercise executive functions, should be men of the right calibre. In most cases it should be possible to find suitable people who will be willing to devote themselves exclusively to the work of the Board. However, we must recognise the practical difficulties.
There may be cases where the services of a particular person with outstanding qualifications cannot be obtained if he is required to sever completely all his industrial and commercial connections. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said it was a contradiction in terms to appoint a man whole-time and, at the same time, to authorise him to retain other appointments outside.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) went even further. He dealt with his own experience in this matter—or his recollection of it. He said that the letters of appointment to whole-time members of public boards had hitherto—he was referring to the time of the previous Government—always specified that the persons concerned must give the whole of their time to this work. He said that this was the first time it had been suggested that a while-time member could also hold other appointments.
That was certainly not the view he took as Minister of Supply when he set up the Iron and Steel Corporation, in 1949. The letters of appointment, which he addressed to whole-time members of the Iron and Steel Corporation read thus:You will be required to render whole-time service to the Corporation and to devote yourself exclusively to the business of the Corporation except insofar as the Corporation, with my approval, may otherwise permit."
§ Mr. Sandys
That shows clearly that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the holding of other appointments was not necessarily inconsistent with whole-time membership—[An HON. MEMBER: "Very weak."] I am trying to deal with this factually. In appointing the whole-time chairman of the Corporation the right hon. Gentleman specifically authorised him to retain directorships in two companies. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that?
§ Mr. Strauss
This is exactly the type of insignificant work for which we make exception in our Amendment. As far as I can remember there were two small bodies, entirely nominal, of which the chairman was a member of the Corporation, to which he devoted no time whatsoever but, for some family or technical reason, it was necessary that he should nominally retain his membership of those boards. It is clear from what the Minister has read out that the view I held then as Minister, that there should be exclusive work for the Corporation, with some exceptions to which the Minister might agree, is exactly what we are asking for today.
§ Mr. Sandys
To remove any misapprehension, let me say at this stage that when I appoint whole-time members of the Board, I intend to use language which, if not exactly the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman, will, to all intents and purposes, follow the formula which he has used.
§ Mr. Strauss
I do not want to interrupt, but does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that now there has been put into this Bill a definition of what is meant by full-time—something quite different from what was commonly agreed and meant and understood by everybody before—and having appointed somebody under the terms under which I appointed them, that person will be able subsequently to take paid work and will be able to refer to the Bill as a justification for doing so.
§ Mr. Sandys
Let me continue to examine what the practice has been up to now. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards this problem was further illustrated by another appointment he made to the Iron and Steel Corporation. He appointed as the whole-time Vice-Chairman of the Corporation a person who was already a part-time member of another public board. Part-time membership of an important public board is something which I would have thought took up more than what is described in the Amendment as an insignificant part of a man's time. Again, the problem of defining "insignificant" is one on which different sides of the House can take different views.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Strauss
I inquired into the time it would take up before I agreed to it, and it was literally insignificant—a few hours a month.
§ Mr. Sandys
It is very unsatisfactory if that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman specifically authorised this gentleman to retain that appointment. The same view was taken by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Supply, Lord Wilmot. In a letter appointing the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board, in 1946, Lord Wilmot specified that he was to give whole-time service to the Board. At the same time, Lord Wilmot authorised him to retain certain outside directorships carrying directors' fees and other emoluments. I mention that because it has a bearing on the Amendment, which seeks to exclude outside appointments if they are paid.
Other examples could be quoted. It is clear, therefore, that my predecessors in the late Government did not regard the holding of outside appointments, whether paid or unpaid, as being necessarily, as a matter of principle, inconsistent with whole-time membership. I must claim—and I claim no more—the same latitude as my predecessors enjoyed. On the other hand—this is a matter which has not been raised—I recognise that, in fixing the emoluments of such members, it is proper to take into account the fact that they are doing other work in addition to their work on the Board.
I do not think we need get very worked up about this question of the definition of "whole-time." Even if we call them main-time members it will come to the same thing. We know what we mean. Let me say that I would not appoint anybody unless he will give all the time that is necessary to the work of the Board, that it will be a first call upon his time and upon his energies, and that he shall not accept or retain any outside appointments which are in any sense incompatible with, or would raise a conflict of loyalties in regard to, his work as a member of the Board.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) referred to the fact that an earlier Amendment which he moved in regard to tungsten and molybdenum had been proposed by Lord Wilmot in another 1322 place. I suppose, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall be in order in telling the House that in another place Lord Wilmot expressed himself in favour of this Amendment about whole-time members, which he described as most wise. So, in this matter, we are advancing in harmony with, at any rate, part of the leadership of the party opposite.
The Bill does not specify how many whole-time members there should be on the Board. Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall—and his example has been invaluable to me on many occasions, particularly in the debates on this Bill— I resisted the proposal put forward by him that the proportion of whole-time and part-time members should be laid down by statute. However, when he pressed me during the Committee stage debate, I did agree to outline my personal ideas of how the Board might be composed.
I suggested that it might have a nucleus of about four full-time members. On a Board of 15 that would represent about one-quarter. I must, however, remind the House that I made it quite clear at the time that those were only my preliminary thoughts, given to the House on the spur of the moment. I stressed the fact—hon. Members who were present will remember—that I was not committing myself definitely in any way to these proportions.
Since then I have had time to consider this matter more closely and I should take this opportunity to inform the House that, after further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the ratio I then suggested of one-quarter whole-time to three-quarters part-time is probably just about right. Again without committing myself, I can tell the House that that is the kind of pattern I have in mind for the original appointments to the Board.
In the light of these explanations, I hope the Opposition—although I know it is a temptation on the last occasion to have a Division—will not press this Amendment, which would only have the effect of weakening the safeguards on financial interests inserted in the Bill at their own request. But, if they wish to have their last Division, we on this side of the House will well understand how they feel about it. May I say once again, as this may be the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of speaking on this Bill, that I feel that, with the help 1323 of the Opposition, we have conducted the discussions in a satisfactory way. The Amendments which have come from both sides both here and in another place have resulted in the Bill leaving Parliament a distinctly better Bill than when it was introduced.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair to Lord Wilmot. I had the occasion when the Amendment was moved and agreed to and, in fact, Lord Wilmot never spoke on it. It was moved by Lord Hawke and it was observed by another noble Lord on the other side of the House thatthis clause, which may become known in commerce and possibly in the law as the
§ Hawke Clause, is very sensible and imaginative."
It appears to have been agreed to without any comment from anybody at all on our side of their Lordships' House except that Lord Jowitt said that Lord Hawke was
merely following the tradition of his family." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 182, c. 199.]
§ Mr. Sandys
The hon. and learned Member will find Lord Wilmot's speech which I referred to in column 161.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 220.1327
|Division No. 171.]||AYES||[7.25 p.m.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Duthie, W. S.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Erroll, F. J.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Fell, A.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.||Finlay, Graeme||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Fisher, Nigel||Kaberry, D.|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Kerr, H. W.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Langford-Holt, J. A.|
|Baldock Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Fort, R.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Gammans, L. D.||Lindsay, Martin|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Linstead, H. N.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Llewellyn, D. T.|
|Birch, Nigel||Glyn, Sir Ralph||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Godber, J. B.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Black C. W.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Low, A. R. W.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Gough, C. F. H.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Gower, H. R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Braine, B. R.||Graham, Sir Fergus||McAdden, S. J.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Gridley, Sir Arnold||McCallum, Major D.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Grimond, J.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Bullard, D. G.||Harden, J. R. E.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hare, Hon. J. H.||Maclean, Fitzroy|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Carr, Robert||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hay, John||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Channon, H.||Heald, Sir Lionel||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Heath, Edward||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Higgs, J. M. C.||Markham, Major S. F.|
|Cole, Norman||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Colegate, W. A.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maude, Angus|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||Hirst, Geoffrey||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Medlicott, Brig. F.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Mellor, Sir John|
|Crouch, R. F.||Holt, A. F.||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Horobin, I. M.||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Nield, Basil (Chester)|
|Digdy, S. Wingfield||Hulbert, Wing Cdf. N. J.||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Nutting, Anthony|
|Donner P. W.||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Odey, G. W.|
|Drewe, C.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Jennings, R.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Osborne, C.||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Partridge, E.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn.Peter (Monmouth)|
|Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Scott, R. Donald||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Perkins, W. R. D.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Shepherd, William||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Payton, J. W. W.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Turton, R. H.|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Pitman, I. J.||Snadden, W. McN.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Soames, Capt. C.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Spearman, A. C. M.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Profumo, J. D.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Raikes, Sir Victor||Stevens, G. P.||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Remnant, Hon. P.||Storey, S.||Wellwood, W.|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbrdge)|
|Robertson, Sir David||Studholme, H. G.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Robson-Brown, W.||Summers, G. S.||Wills, G.|
|Roper, Sir Harold||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Russell, R. S.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||York, C.|
|Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||McInnes, J.|
|Adams, Richard||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Albu, A. H.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McLeavy, F.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Fernyhough, E.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Fienburgh, W.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Foot, M. M.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Forman, J. C.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Baird, J.||Freeman, John (Watford)||Manuel, A. C.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Gibson, C. W.||Mason, Roy|
|Bartley, P.||Glanville, James||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Bence, C. R.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Messer, F.|
|Benson, G.||Grey, C. F.||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Beswick, F.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Monslow, W.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Moody, A. S.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Morley, R.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hamilton, W. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)|
|Boardman, H.||Hannan, W.||Mort, D. L.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hargreaves, A.||Moyle, A.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Mulley, F. W.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hastings, S.||Murray, J. D.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hayman, F. H.||Nally, W.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Burke, W. A.||Herbison, Miss M.||O'Brien, T.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Hobson, C. R.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Holman, P.||Orbach, M.|
|Carmichael, J.||Houghton, Douglas||Oswald, T.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hoy, J. H.||Padley, W. E.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hubbard, T. F.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Clunie, J.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Coldrick, W.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pannell, Charles|
|Collick, P. H.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Parker, J.|
|Cove, W. G.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Paton, J.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jeger, George (Goole)||Pearson, A.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Popplewell, E.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Porter, G.|
|Daines, P.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Keenan, W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||King, Dr. H. M.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Deer, G.||Kinley, J.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Rankin, John|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Rhodes, H.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Lewis, Arthur||Richards, R.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Edelman, M.||Logan, D. G.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Edwards, John (Brighouse)||McGhee, H. G.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||McGovern, J.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Shackleton, E. A. A.||Sylvester, G. O.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Short, E. W.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Shurmer, P. L. E.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)||Wigg, George|
|Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||Thornton, E.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Skeffington, Arthur||Timmons, J.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Tomney, F.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield,)||Turner-Samuels, M.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Snow, J. W.||Viant, S. P.||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Sorensen, R. W.||Wallace, H. W.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Sparks, J. A.||Weitzman, D.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Yates, V. F.|
|Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)||Wells, William (Walsall)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Stross, Dr. Barnett||West, D. G.|
|Swingler, S. T.||Wheeldon, W. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.|
Question put, and agreed to.