§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
§ Mr. Speaker
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is out of order.
§ 11.50 p.m.
§ Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)
On the Second Reading of this Bill I assume it is at least in order to argue about the timing of its introduction, and to raise certain matters which we think of special importance with regard to this Measure. We had hoped to have been able to put the point that in our view the whole of this procedure was the wrong way round.
We were confronted with the position some days ago that we were being asked to make certain provisions in the Public Works Loans Bill, and then subsequently we were being asked to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is our view that at this time of the evening a debate on this very important matter of the timing of the introduction of this Measure should be further delayed because it does raise this very important issue of the question whether or not local authorities, by being encouraged to go into the money market, should be forced by the Government to pay excessive rates of interest. For that reason we believe that the introduction of this Bill should be delayed.
§ Mr. Speaker
It is a Ruling that has lasted for over 50 years that the inclusion or exclusion in or from a Schedule of the Bill of any Act cannot be discussed on Second Reading.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I submit two considerations? While I 1752 think it is perfectly true that for many years past there has never been any detailed discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that detailed discussion has been left to the Committee stage, I have been unable to find any definite Ruling that a discussion on Second Reading is out of order. Surely it is possible for any hon. Gentleman to argue that this Bill should not be given a Second Reading at all, either because none of the particular enactments in the Schedule are fit to be renewed for another year, or alternatively, on the grounds that the Bill omits to renew for a further year a number of enactments which should be renewed.
While no one would wish at this hour to detain the House for any undue length of time it seems to me of great importance that the House should preserve its right to discuss the Bill as a whole on Second Reading, and if necessary to proceed to a vote. If that be the position I should have thought it valid as a necessary corollary that hon. Gentlemen were entitled to address arguments why they thought the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
My second point is this. There was some reference to this matter on Wednesday last when we were discussing the Public Works Loans Bill. On that occasion you, Mr. Speaker, said:When we come to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the question will be quite unprejudiced by anything said on the present Bill, and the House can come to its decision whether or not that Bill as it now stands should be passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 961.]I think I am speaking within the recollection of a number of other hon. Members who were present when I say that it amounted to an assurance that, while we agreed to allow the Public Works Loans Bill to take precedence on Wednesday, the House was not to be prejudiced in its right to discuss the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Might I add that I attach particular significance to the words "the House." I well appreciate that there can also be a discussion on the Committee stage, but 1753 the terms of your assurance, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly apply to the rights of the House which, of course, only come into operation on the Second and Third Readings.
§ Mr. Speaker
The rights of the House also come into effect on the Report stage. I made it perfectly clear, though I have not the copy by me. I went out of my way, even anticipating the discussion, to indicate to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that his Amendment was out of order on Second Reading. What I meant was that the House could discuss this properly on an Amendment moved in Committee, and that the report of the Committee might or might not be accepted by the House at a later stage. As to the other matters to which the hon. Member has alluded, the House is quite in order in voting against he Second Reading of the Bill. As to discussing it, the hon. Member would have to discuss it without reference to any of the Acts in the Schedule, and I think he would find that a very narrow limitation, so narrow that in the past there has been no discussion at all.
§ 11.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Fletcher
Accepting your Ruling that I must not refer to any Acts in the Schedule, Mr. Speaker, I should like, within the narrow limits which you have indicated, to adduce arguments as to why I suggest that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. Regardless of what Acts there are or are not in the Schedule, one of the principles that follows from this Bill is whether it is reasonable that the House should continue certain enactments year by year. It may well be that this has been done for a long time, but many people take the view that it is important that the law should be definite and fixed and that citizens of this country should know not merely for one year in advance but for a considerable time ahead what is the law of the country.
Therefore, it merits consideration whether it is reasonable at all to isolate half a dozen miscellaneous provisions from different statutes and continue them year by year. I should have thought it was an archaic method of legislating. It may be justified by historical reasons, but I should have thought the time had arrived when this House ought seriously 1754 to consider whether this is a modern businesslike way of dealing with this.
The contents of the Schedule can be considered on the Committee stage, but is it really a sound principle that some of these totally unrelated matters should have to come up year by year, whereas the bulk of our legislation is fixed and accessible and people know that it endures for a long time—apart, of course, from controversial and rather flippant Measures like Transport and Iron and Steel Bills? I am speaking of the general law of the land, the non-controversial law, unlike these other Measures with which the Government see fit to use up Parliamentary time.
I should have thought that this was an admirable occasion for us to consider whether any useful purpose is served by the practice of renewing totally unrelated matters year by year. It involves the use of Parliamentary time and some hon. Members, including the Leader of the House for one, may well think that the Parliamentary time available to the Government is not so ample that it is particularly wise to use a great deal of it up in this way. That is one reason why the House is entitled to exercise the right, which it may have chosen not to exercise for a number of years, and consider whether we should have an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at all.
There is nothing sacrosanct or particularly temporary in any of these Measures set out in the Schedule. A great many deal with matters which have been in existence for a large number of years; some go back to 1924. They are of a notoriously diverse character. Therefore, I suggest that the House seriously consider whether the time has not now arrived when the whole of these miscellaneous enactments should be put on a permanent basis and that we should not have this Bill in this form year by year.
§ 12.1 a.m.
§ Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)
I, too, want to speak of the principle that underlies this Bill. The time has come when we should regard this method of temporary legislation as thoroughly unsatisfactory. Here we have a number of diverse statutes. Generally, they were introduced as temporary, and as a result inadequate time was originally given to their discussion. If one takes an example, without going outside the rules of order, there is 1755 the whole of the law relating to aliens. It has never been discussed by this House. That is serious. It has been constantly renewed, but it was never discussed in its origin because it was introduced on 4th August, 1940. It has gone on year by year.
We have reached a time when we should clear up and tidy up this legislation, and here is an ideal opportunity. We have a Government without any mandate from the electors, with no business whatever to be introducing controversial legislation which can only upset the economy of the country.
§ Mr. Paget
I was merely pointing out why this was such a convenient time to get rid of this form of legislation and to provide proper time to introduce permanent legislation to replace it. We should have permanent legislation. At this time, when there is more or less a "caretaker" Government, without a majority of votes, and which has no business to introduce except controversial legislation, there is a real opportunity to do these useful jobs that have wanted doing for a long time, and so ease industry's mind by getting these disturbing and doctrinal Measures out of the way.
§ 12.5 a.m.
§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)
Although I was disappointed by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, yet I bow completely to it. I wish to give reasons, however, why I think that the whole of the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading. Certainly, the Acts contained in the Schedule ought not to be included in the Bill, two of them because they have grown quite out of date in view of the needs—
§ Mr. Hudson
I have not got an Amendment down, but at the time when Members of my own party were responsible for the Government I made serious criticisms of certain of these Acts, which will be found stated at great length in HANSARD, whose columns I can quote. At the time I made those references, they were ruled to be in order—at least, no 1756 attempt was made to rule them out. At that time I criticised very strongly the continuance of, at any rate, part of the Measures that are mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, I feel—
§ Mr. Speaker
There is nothing wrong in the hon. Member's criticising Acts which it is proposed to include in the Schedule of the Bill, but he must do it in Committee and not on Second Reading.
§ Mr. Hudson
I still feel, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that I ought to—and indeed, I will, under your guidance—come again to the matter in the Committee stage, there is a case now for facing up to the fact, as the Government ought to have faced up to it, that these Acts generally have grown out of date and they have no right to be taking up the time of the House in a Second Reading debate on issues that have no applicability to the position—
§ Mr. Speaker
I agree entirely with the hon. Member, and that is the point of order that I have been trying to instil into the House. It is not proper to take up the time of the House on Second Reading with criticisms of the various Acts when machinery exists ready for proper discussion in Committee. That is the basis of all these Rulings, and I am afraid that I must rule the hon. Member out of order in that respect.
§ 12.8 a.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
I have for many years been seeking an opportunity to oppose the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cordially welcome and accept the Ruling you have given, which provides me with that opportunity. I am not concerned with the Amendment, which, rightly—because you, Mr. Speaker, are the right person to decide—you have ruled out of order. I am not going to refer to any of the Acts contained in the Schedule to the Bill, because if I interpret your Ruling correctly any reference to them, any controversy as to the merits or demerits of these particular Acts, would be completely out of order.
The fact that a previous Labour Government, because more important things required their attention, continued this form of legislation during the years that the Labour Government were in power, does not mean 1757 that the present Government must slavishly follow what the Labour Government did. Some of us thought that, with a new Government, there would be a new broom and a determined attempt to do away with this constant renewal of emergency legislation. But what do we find? We find that at this late hour of the night, by the decision of the Leader of the House, we are asked to agree to the continuance of the outworn, out-dated formulae which are involved in the Second Reading of the Bill. I suggest that it is a little odd that all the bad, out-of-date or merely traditional things which the Labour Government did when in power are being continued by this Government, while all the good things we did are being abrogated.
I want to go on record as being strongly opposed to the Bill. It is an antiquated method which wastes the time of the House. Under efficient administration of the business of the House—the lack of which we have deplored since this Government came into power—all the purposes for which the Bill is required could easily be met in other ways, with a considerable saving of time. In addition, we should have the advantage which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) outlined—that the law would be more accessible and much more comprehensible to those which have to interpret it and who have to assist those people who go to the legal profession for legal advice.
For all those reasons, I hope the House will express the view that this is the last time we propose to allow any Government to ask the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If the only way in which we can convince the Government of the seriousness of our intentions is to divide the House, then I will gladly support any of my hon. Friends who wish to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading.
§ 12.12 a.m.
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)
I am sure it will be acknowledged that we have taken part this evening in an historical occasion. As far as my researches go, we have not had a debate on the Second Reading of this Bill since 1863. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their ingenuity on finding the occasion for one this morning. It is true that 1758 in 1936 one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, permitted Mr. George Buchanan to move that the debate be adjourned before it had started and that, on the pretext that the debate was going to be adjourned, the House conducted a 12-hour discussion on the future of the special areas. But this is the first time on such an occasion that we have had arguments addressed to the substance of the Clauses of the Bill.
I think it is quite right that the House should exercise its ancient privilege of watching legislation of this sort, and the only disappointment I have is that the Liberals have not been here to share it with us. After all, they put down an Amendment to the Gracious Speech which said that we should watch legislation very carefully—and we are prepared to help them in that course; but we expected them to translate words into deeds and we hoped that we should have their assistance in this matter tonight.
I do not want to deny the Financial Secretary the opportunity to reply, and I want to ask him why it is proposed to continue these Acts until 31st December, 1953, and why, in the case of the Acts in the second part of the Schedule, which of course I shall not proceed to discuss in detail, he proposes that they should be continued until March, 1954. In other words, a Government with imagination that wanted to get their programme of business through might very well come to the House and say, "Let us continue these Acts for a period of two years and then we shall have more time to discuss the Transport Bill." I myself would welcome more time to discuss the Transport Bill. The longer the discussions we have the more the weakness of their case will be shown.
It would seem to me that the Financial Secretary might tell us why he thinks 12 months is the right period for extending these enactments so that we may judge, before making up our minds whether to vote this evening, whether his reasons are sound and adequate.
§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid I could not allow the Financial Secretary to reply because that would mean that he would be referring to the various Acts which are differentiated in the Schedule, and that should be done on the Committee stage.
§ Mr. Callaghan
I was hoping that we were not going to get on to a point of order on that matter, because I submit to you with deference, Sir, that the dates to which these enactments are to be continued are in the body of the Bill. If we are not to discuss the Schedule and we are not to discuss what is in the body of the Bill, what is the purpose of having a stage called the Second Reading?
Presumably we are allowed to divide on it—I suppose that right has not been taken from us—and if we are allowed to divide on it, one would assume that we are allowed to adduce reasons why we are going to divide. Therefore, I submit with great respect that it is in order to adduce reasons why we should ask the Financial Secretary to tell us why he wants to continue these enactments for a period of 12 months and not for a longer or shorter period.
§ Mr. Speaker
It would involve consideration of the Acts in the Schedule, would it not—each one, as I understand it? The hon. Member is entitled to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill, but the discussion on Second Reading has been, in the last 50 years at least, very strictly limited.
§ Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to tell the House exactly why, because for 50 or 60 years there has been no ordinary debate on the Second Reading, we should not have one tonight? We do not know why. There are certain things that go through "on the nod," but could you explain why there is no debate at all on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
§ Mr. Speaker
I think I can explain it quite well. The Clauses of the Bill, leaving the Schedule out of account, do refer to the Acts in the Schedule. The Bill is really incomprehensible without detailed examination of the merits of the various Acts which are being continued. The proper place for that is in Committee. There is no connection between the various Acts in the Schedule. It does not deal with only one subject but with many, and it is the practice of this House to deal with it most appropriately, which is in Committee.
§ Mr. Bowles
But with respect, always on the Second Reading of any Bill one is allowed to discuss what is in the Bill. I do not see why what is in the Schedule 1760 is any less in the Bill than what is in, say, Clause 2.
§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit that so narrow a Ruling as that which you have just enunciated completely stultifies debate in this House. I am saying this with the greatest respect. This House is then to be in the position of being asked to divide upon a matter concerning which they do not know what they are dividing upon.
§ Mr. Speaker
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a Ruling which has persisted for 50 years, and if the hon. and learned Member does not find sufficient grounds for dividing the House on the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I am afraid that that is the only ground that there can be.
§ Mr. Hector Hughes
Further to that point of order. With great respect, surely that is not an adequate reason. I submit that a Ruling cannot be justified if it can be proved to be entirely unreasonable and one which stultifies this House. My submission is that that Ruling does stultify this House because the House will be asked to divide upon a matter concerning which we do not know what we are dividing upon.
§ Mr. Speaker
It is well settled practice, and there are other stages of the Bill more appropriate for discussion than this.
§ Mr. Callaghan
This, if I may, with respect say so, appears to be a most peculiar situation. A Motion is before us upon which, apparently, we can divide, but upon which there can be no discussion of the merits. May I, Mr. Speaker—and I agree that this is quite hypothetical—ask whether, if the Government came along and wished to move that the Bill should be continued for two years, and not for one—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or for a hundred years."]—would it then be in order for us not to be entitled to debate why the Government proposed to continue these enactments for that length of time? I am seeking information for generations as yet unborn; I am speaking for those generations. 1761 Would you, Mr. Speaker, then be in the position of upsetting precedents for, as my hon. Friend says, a hundred years, in order to enable the House to fulfil its ancient authority?
§ Mr. Speaker
Speaking for generations as yet unborn, I hope that the House will concede the Second Reading, leaving the Committee stage open for proper discussion on proper functions.
§ Mr. Callaghan
I hope that we shall not pass the Schedules to the Transport Bill in the same way; that we shall not discuss them at all, as we are not allowed to discuss these Schedules. But, on a narrower point—and I appreciate that you, Mr. Speaker, will not preside over our discussions on the Committee stage—would you tell us whether, if an Amendment is put down for that stage, it will be called? If that is so, then, despite the unsatisfactory attitude of the Government tonight, I would ask my hon. Friends not to divide now.
§ Mr. Speaker
Obviously, it is not for me to pre-judge the decision of the Chairman, but I can tell the House that it is in order to move for the inclusion of an Act within the Schedule, providing it is an expiring law, that is to say, that it has not yet expired and, on the other hand, is in order for money reasons.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious point of order. You said that it would be in order to put down an Amendment, or suggest the inclusion of any other Act in the Schedule, providing that Act was on the verge of expiring. In these circumstances, would it be possible to include in the Schedules to this Bill the present Transport Act which doubtless is on the verge of being made into an expiring law?
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. James Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
May I make a point of order? It is that it has been indicated that the practice has been to go along 1762 a certain line. May we have a Ruling, not merely on the practice, but a Ruling on the subject which we have not had so far?
§ Mr. Speaker
I have given a Ruling founded on the practice of the House. The practice of the House is binding on me, as it is on other hon. Members.
§ Mr. Carmichael
With all respect, if it is the practice of the House surely it is based upon some Ruling given in the House at some time and constituted in the Standing Orders and the rules of the House? Surely we are entitled to have some guidance so that we can look it up. There is nothing wrong in an ordinary back bencher looking up the rules so that he can be safeguarded.
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member will find guidance as to the practice of the House in the volumes which deal with it.
§ 12.26 a.m.
§ Mr. Bing
I am going to add only one word to what has been said by my hon. Friend, if I may do so for the benefit of the unborn generations whose interests it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides of the House to safeguard. I address my remarks to the Long Title of the Bill. There would be no objection whatsoever to having a discussion based upon the purpose of the Bill, which is to continue certain expiring laws. You may yourself recall, Sir, that in 1947 there was a discussion, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), on the subject of emergency legislation. I think you took part in it. One of the issues was whether or not this emergency legislation should be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
The point I want to put quite shortly is this—and I hope that we shall have an answer from the Leader of the House: it is one thing to have an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill when one continues all the expiring laws in that Bill: but if three-quarters of the laws which one is going to continue are continued in some other way there is an argument for doing away with this practice. Let us either do what was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and continue all the Defence Regulations by means of a Bill of this nature or make all the Bills that are contained in these Schedules Defence Regulations and continue them in that way.
1763 But what is quite wrong—and what I am very surprised that the Leader of the House should do—is to try to adopt both processes, because he knows perfectly well that in his Election address and in the Election addresses of all hon. and right hon. Members opposite it was said that this process was not going to be followed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to remember what they said in "Britain Strong and Free". They said:Such powers, but no more, as are required for the present critical situation should be incorporated in new Statutes requiring annual renewal.That may apply to an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but it would be of a very different character and nature from this one.
We are surely entitled to say that this one should be rejected in order that one could be brought in which would be more appropriate to the broken promises by which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite succeeded in winning the Election. The quotation from "Britain Strong and Free" continues as follows:New Orders will have to be made under these new Acts, and thus all the Regulations and Orders under emergency powers will have to be reviewed by Parliament.Were we to expand the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to take into its ambit all the Defence Regulations there would be every reason to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite had fulfilled their Election pledges; but if that is not done it makes an absolute mockery of the promises which they threw out so glibly in order to get a few more votes.
§ The House should look a little more carefully at this Bill in the content in which it now comes forward. It is quite impossible to consider any Measure without taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances. A Bill which might be quite appropriate to introduce at a certain time—for instance, the provisions of the Army Act 100 years ago—would be quite inappropriate today. In the same way, an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of this nature might have been quite appropriate in the past but be quite wrong today, and we should be given some indication how the Government are to get an annual renewal of these powers and have them thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament, if they are not going to put them into this Bill.
§ If they are going to put them into the Bill then clearly the dates are all wrong. The date ought to be 10th December, because the Regulations expire on that date, and not 31st December. It would be courteous if the Leader of the House would at least deal with some of his Election pledges. We are aware, of course, that a great many of them cannot be explained away, and he is the most dexterous of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in that, but at least on this we are entitled to some answer.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move,
§ "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 266.1767
|Division No. 6.]||AYES||[12.30 a.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Birch, Nigel||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Bishop, F. P.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Black, C. W.||Cole, Norman|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Boothby, R. J. G.||Colegate, W. A.|
|Amory, Heathcoat, (Tiverton)||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Conant, Maj. R. J. E.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Boyle, Sir Edward||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert|
|Arbuthnot, John||Braine, B. R.||Cooper-Key, E. M.|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.||Brooman-White, R. C.||Crouch, R. F.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Crowden, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)|
|Barber, Anthony||Bullard, D. G.||Cuthbert, W. N.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bullock, Capt. M.||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Davidson, Viscountess|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Burden, F. F. A.||Deedes, W. F.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Butcher, H. W.||Digby, S. Wingfield|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Campbell, Sir David||Dodds-Parker, A. D.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Carson, Hon. E.||Donner, P. W.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Cary, Sir Robert||Doughty, C. J. A.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Channon, H.||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Drewe, C.||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Duncan, Gapt. J. A. L.||Leather, E. H. C.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Erroll, F. J.||Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fell, A.||Lindsay, Martin||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Finlay, Graeme||Linstead, H. N.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)||Russell, R. S.|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. G.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Fort, R.||Low, A. R. W.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Foster, John||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Scott, R. Donald|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||McAdden, S. J.||Shepherd, William|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||McCallum, Major D.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Godber, J. B.||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col A.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Gough, C. F. H.||McKibbin, A. J.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Gower, H. R.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Maclean, Fitzroy||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Speir, R. M.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Spence, H. R (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Harden, J. R. E.||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Hare, Hon. J. H.||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Markham, Major S. F.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Storey, S.|
|Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||Marples, A. E.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Maude, Angus||Studholme, H. G.|
|Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Maudling, R.||Summers, G. S.|
|Heald, Sir Lionel||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Heath, Edward||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Mellor, Sir John||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Molson, A. H. E.||Teeling, W.|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Nicholls, Harmar||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Tilney, John|
|Hope, Lord John||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Turton, R. H.|
|Horobin, I. M.||Nutting, Anthony||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Odey, G. W.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Vesper, D. F.|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Handon, N.)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Hurd, A. R.||Osborne, C.||Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)|
|Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Partridge, E.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Powell, J. Enoch||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Wills, G.|
|Kaberry, D.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Keeling, Sir Edward||Profumo, J. D.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Rayner, Brig. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Lambton, Viscount||Redmayne, M.||Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Bacon, Miss Alice||Benson, G.|
|Adams, Richard||Baird, J.||Beswick, F.|
|Albu, A. H.||Balfour, A.||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Bing, G. H. C.|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Bartley, P.||Blackburn, F.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Blenkinsop, A.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Bence, C. R.||Blyton, W. R.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Benn, Wedgwood||Boardman, H.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hobson, C. R.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Holman, P.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Rankin, John|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Houghton, Douglas||Reeves, J.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rhodes, H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Burke, W. A.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Ross, William|
|Carmichael, J.||Janner, B.||Schofield, S. (Barnsley)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Short, E. W.|
|Clunie, J.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Collick, P. H.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Corbert, Mrs. Freda||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Slater, J.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Keenan, W.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Kenyon, C.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Snow, J. W.|
|Daines, P.||King, Dr. H. M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Steele, T.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lewis, Arthur||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Lindgren, G. S.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Deer, G.||MacColl, J. E.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Delargy, H. J.||McGhee, H. G.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||McInnes, J.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Donnelly, D. L.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||McLeavy, F.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Edelman, M.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Manuel, A. C.||Timmons, J.|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Tomney, F.|
|Ewart, R.||Mayhew, C. P.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mellish, R. J.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Field, W. J.||Mikardo, Ian||Wallace, H. W.|
|Fienburgh, W.||Mitchison, G. R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Finch, H. J.||Moody, A. S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Weitzman, D.|
|Follick, M.||Morley, R.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Foot, M. M.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Forman, J. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||West, D. G.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Moyle, A.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Mulley, F. W.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Murray, J. D.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Nally, W.||Wigg, George|
|Glanville, James||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Gooch, E. G. H.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Oldfield, W. H.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||Oliver, G. H.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Grey, C. F.||Orbach, M.||Williams, Rev. Llwelyn (Abertillery)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Oswald, T.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Padley, W. E.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Paget, R. T.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Hyton)|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Hannan, W.||Pannell, Charles||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Hardy, E. A.||Pargiter, G. A.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Hargreaves, A.||Parker, J.||Yates, V. F.|
|Hastings, S.||Paton, J.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Peart, T. F.|
|Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Popplewell, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Porter, G.||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)|
Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time.
§ Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Butcher.]
§ Committee this day.