HC Deb 27 April 1953 vol 514 cc1769-820

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CROOKSHANK:

1. The proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

2. If, on the expiration of four hours from the time when the Order of the day for the consideration of those amendments is read, those proceedings have not been completed, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to, and (if it has not been already disposed of) the amendment to the Bill (Schedule 4, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23) standing on the notice paper in the name of Mr. Lennox-Boyd, be agreed to:

Provided that if at this day's sitting the said proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) the time at which Mr. Speaker is to put that question shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the Motion for the Adjournment.

3.57 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

I beg to move the notice—

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

On a point of order. I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the question whether points of order can be raised on the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman is about to move and before it is moved with a view to ascertaining your judgment on whether it is com petent for him to move it, particularly in relation to the fact that in our opinion certain of the Lords Amendments involve questions of Privilege. We are of opinion that, before the right hon. Gentleman moves it, it ought to be competent to argue these points of order. I should like you to direct your mind to the point whether the right hon. Gentleman should be permitted to move the Motion at all, particularly in relation to Privilege.

There is, of course, the further consideration that there are some points of order that must be seriously advanced and must take a little time Which other wise would take up a part of the two hours of the allocation of time in the proposed Order, which would be an additional grievance. I should like to know whether we shall be permitted to raise points of order generally at this stage, and certainly the point about Privilege which may or may not be involved in their Lordships Amendments.

Mr. Speaker

One cannot have a point of order in vacuo without some business before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has moved it, before proposing it to the House I shall try to satisfy hon. Members that the Motion is in order. As I promised, I have given this matter a considerable amount of study over the weekend and perhaps it might assist our proceedings if, for the sake of brevity, I read out what I have put together. I have only written it because it will be shorter that way than it would be if I tried to find words as I go along. This is what I have written: "The Motion proposed"—

Mr. Morrison

If we can argue—that is hardly the right word—the matter after you have made the statement, that is all right. The only thing I put to you with great respect is this: is it right for you to give a Ruling before you have heard the arguments on the question whether the Motion is in order? I think it might place us in a difficulty if sub sequently considerations were put to you which, on second thoughts, you regarded as points of substance. It seems to me that it is perhaps a little unusual—I am saying this with the deepest respect to you personally and as Mr. Speaker—if Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling before the submissions were made to him in the House.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

I was going on the sub mission made to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on the last occasion, so I knew there was some doubt about this matter and I shall endeavour to satisfy it. For my own part, if the right hon. Gentleman cares now to put the point of order he has in mind. I will listen to him.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to you, Sir. In the first place, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are certain provisions in their Lordships' Amendments which, in our judgment, prima facie involve questions of Privilege. You will recall. Sir. that when questions of Privilege are involved on Lords Amendments it is customary for the Chair to draw attention to them. Often the House raises no issue about them and they are entered upon the Journals of the House. For example, there is a point on page 7 of the Lords Amendments, namely, the Amendment in page 15, line 34, which deals with the Transport Fund and which not only involves a compulsory levy to be imposed by the State, and therefore is in the nature of taxation, but presumably, if the levy is inadequate, the Treasury will have to do something about it. On page 7 of the Lords Amendments—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can deal with those points now. I am quite satisfied that there are seven of the Lords Amendments which involve questions of Privilege and as to which, in the ordinary course, if the House agrees to them, I shall direct a special entry to be made in the Journals. That is the usual practice. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to state now for the sake of the record what the Amendments are, I will do so. There are seven, including the one he was talking about. I can accept that straight away and I do not need to be convinced of it.

Mr. Morrison

I have no doubt that we are thinking about the same Amendments, Sir, and it would save time if we did not now particularise about them. My point is that when the Chair mentions that a point of Privilege is involved, it is for the purpose of enabling the House, if it so desires, to object in the interests of the Privilege of the House. My point about that is that if the Allocation of Time Order provides, as I understand it does, that the outstanding Amendments are to be put as a whole and so we are forbidden to particularise as between one Amendment and another, we cannot vote for or against particular Amendments on their merits and therefore we cannot pursue the point of Privilege. Surely the Motion is out of order, in so far as it prevents this House from even considering persisting in its rights of Privilege? May I take that point first?

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Further to that point of order, because none of us wishes to waste time on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a fundamental matter of principle upon which this country fought a bloody civil war, in respect of which John Hampden was tried and which is one of the fundamental principles of this House that you, Sir, on our behalf, demand from the Crown at the opening of every Parliament. I should not have thought it possible for anyone to wish to be facetious about an issue like this, or not to wish for a few moments that anyone who raises it should not have a considerate hearing.

I would not have the impertinence, Sir, to refer you to the precedents on this matter, because I know you must be familiar with them, that you must be cognisant of them and must bear them constantly in mind. The original Resolution of the House of 1671 ended the long controversy of the 17th century and was one upon which the Attorney-General was properly congratulated by this House—an almost unprecedented thing—for the representations he made on our behalf to another place.

The second Resolution of 1678, in which the claims were enlarged and have never since been disputed, was that on matters of taxation, on matters of the levying of funds, on matters relating to public finance, this House should have the powers of originating legislation, of passing legislation and of determining legislation. That has never been challenged. And Mr. Speaker, you will also be familiar with the debate of 5th July, 1860, when Viscount Palmerston, in an able and brilliant speech, which most of us have read many times, reasserted in due form and in due detail the privileges of this House which have never been challenged to this day.

On that, therefore, I need only make a brief submission, because the matter has already been opened so ably by my right hon. Friend. I want to put my own single point of view upon this matter. The suggestion is that at 10 o'clock tonight or thereabouts this House shall be confronted with a single decision, a decision which hon. Members can only exercise by one single voice, either to accept in toto the Lords Amendments or to reject them. There may be a mass of which we approve. There are indeed a mass of which, subject to minor Amendments, we would have approved. There are some which we regard, and which I understand the Public Bill Office regard, and which you have said you would consider as by themselves an infringement of the Privilege of this House which can only be waived by the vote of the House ad hoc on that matter.

For the House to waive its Privilege on a matter of this kind which is fundamental and about which I am sure both sides of the House are deeply concerned, it must be done ad hoc. Today is the first time that the Allocation of Time Order as tabled on the Order Paper can be raised, because it is only today that it is tabled as the first Government Order of the Day, and therefore we have the first formal notice that the Government intend to move it and put it into effect. The effect of that Order is that we shall not have the opportunity of considering the question of individual Privilege or of the Privilege relating to that single Amendment; we shall have to make a single decision that we will accept all the Amendments, and that will be done on a three-line Whip without an individual vote being taken.

It will mean, with great respect, that you, Sir, in a sense are banishing some of your powers by that vote of the House. As I understand it, you may not even have the right to call the attention of the House individually to the seven Amendments. As I understand it, even if you do, the House would have to ignore what you say to them because they would not have the right to exercise a vote. Hon. Members are being deprived of the right of saying, "We waive our Privilege on Clause A but not on Clause B." And much more than that, they are being virtually deprived of the right of raising the matter at all. I submit respectfully to you, Sir, on this issue of great importance, that the Allocation of Time Order as at present drafted, and as now moved as the first Government Order of the Day, is a grave infringement of the Privileges of this House and should be referred to the Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Speaker

May I answer this point first since I think it would be convenient to the House? The Lords Amendments which involve questions of Privilege are those in page 15, line 34; page 16, line 45; page 18, line 11; page 27, line 13; page 46, line 45; page 47, line 8; and page 47, line 34. In the usual way I should call the attention of the House to them as they came along. It would be for the House then to decide whether or not it waived its Privileges. The House cannot do anything against its own Privileges. If the House sanctions it, by passing the Amendments—and I see no difference between passing them seriatim anden bloc—it waives its Privilege on those occasions. It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to that, and that is why I do so now.

Once the House has agreed to the Motion, it has automatically waived its Privilege. All that can be done, all that is done, is for Mr. Speaker to direct that a special entry be made in the Journals, which I shall do in this case, drawing attention to the fact. But I see nothing in that point which makes the Motion out of order.

Mr. H. Morrison

Surely, the whole point of Mr. Speaker's drawing attention in the ordinary way to the fact that an issue of Privilege arises is in order to give the House an opportunity to assert itself on that point if it so desires. You are now, Sir, I gather, putting the point that the House, by passing or accepting their Lordships' Amendments, thereby automatically waives its Privilege. Under the Motion, we shall be denied that opportunity of waiving our Privilege and of questioning it as we go along. Indeed, the Allocation of Time Order would completely wipe away the chance of the House of Commons to raise the question of Privilege at all. Thereafter you would tell the House that a Privilege is raised, and, presumably, you would have to say that it had been specifically set aside by the House, which I submit it would not have been. That an entry must be made in the Journals seems to me irregular, contrary to practice, and as frittering away an undoubted right and Privilege of great importance possessed by the House of Commons as against another place.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot take that view. The House stands guardian of its own Privileges. If the House feels that it should insist on the Privilege point on any of these Amendments, hon. Members can express themselves by voting against the block Motion. There is no other way in which it can be done.—[HON. MEM BERS: "Oh."]—no, not if the House votes for the block Motion. These matters are for the control of the House. They are not in my control. The Motion is not out of order in that regard.

Mr. C. R. Attlee (Walthamstow, West)

This is a new point. I submit that the whole purpose of calling attention to these matters of Privilege is for the House to express an opinion on something on which it either desires to assert or is willing to waive its Privilege. My submission is that if, on the other hand, these matters of Privilege are bound up with a whole lot of other matters entirely extraneous to them, there is no real decision by the House because that decision is one that has to be taken on the whole thing, in which the essence is that no one can take a view; it is reduced to the two sides of the House. The Government say that the Lords Amendments must all be accepted, and the Opposition may either accept or oppose.

Therefore, the House is in effect denied the right of coming to a decision on the specific points. I suggest that that has never before been done. The case in which the Lords Amendments were rejected en bloc was on the Education Bill in the 1906 Parliament, but ipso facto if the whole lot were rejected the question of Privilege could not arise. The acceptance en bloc of Lords Amendments involving questions of Privilege is an entirely new matter.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I wish to raise a point on the terms of the Motion. It is true that you, Mr. Speaker, have drawn our attention to various of these Amendments which conflict with our Privileges. The Question on a particular Lords Amendment will not be before the House. In my submission, the question as to their conflicting with our Privileges must arise when the Question is put to us that we agree with the Lords in the particular Amendment. It is then, when the Question is put, that it becomes your duty to point out to the House that there is a conflict of Privilege and it is then for us to consider whether we shall waive our Privilege and that an entry shall be put in the Journals.

4.15 p.m.

Let us assume—I think one must make an assumption for this argument—that the four hours offered in the Motion expire before at least some of the Lords Amendments are reached. Therefore, we arrive at the hour when the Guillotine falls without the Question having been put. When that arises, you will be ordered and compelled by the terms of the Motion, if it is passed, in that Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to … be agreed to. That provides you no opportunity, unless you contravene the Order, to draw our attention to the question of Privilege with regard to a Question which has been put. In my submission, the Motion is a breach of Privilege in itself, because it forbids you taking the action which you are required to take in order to protect our Privilege.

Erskine May refers at page 782 to what happens when the Question is put: It is the function of the Speaker to direct the attention of the House, when occasion arises"— that is, when the Question is put— to a breach of its privileges in bills or amendments brought from the Lords, and to direct the special entries to be made in the Journals by which the House, in respect of particular amendments, signifies its willingness to waive its privilege without thereby establishing a general precedent. You having drawn our attention to the matter, it is for the House to consider what reason shall be put in the Journals and at page 788 Erskine May states: The Commons, when they so wish, 'waive privilege' in individual cases, and accept amendments by the Lords, so long as they do not materially infringe the privileges of the Commons. In such cases they justify their action by an entry inserted in the Journal, under direction from the Speaker, which, while implicitly asserting their general rights, explains their motives for not asserting them in the particular instance. Then follow a series of reasons which the House may decide to give to the Lords for disagreement. That is a whole series of steps which the protection of our Privileges requires and which have to take place after the Question is put. There is nothing before the House until the Question is put. It is precisely those steps of which we are deprived by the Motion. I submit that the Motion is contrary to our Privileges and, therefore, out of order.

You have said, Mr. Speaker, that this House cannot destroy its own Privileges. It can decide whether or not to assert them, but it cannot destroy them. The Motion would destroy our Privileges because it would compel us to accept an infringement of those Privileges without considering the matter, without having our attention drawn to it by you, which is your duty when the Question is put, and without considering the reasons for waiving it, if at all.

The Prime Minister(Sir Winston Churchill)

On a point of order. May I ask whether it would not be for the general convenience of the House to hear your Ruling which you had proposed to give, dealing with the question of how much these various points of order can be brought within the scope of the arrangements for the conduct of business? I am sure we shall address ourselves to the problems raised much easier when we have heard your considered view of this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison

Further to that point of order. I really thought the Prime Minister had done enough damage to the rights of this House by putting down the Motion at all. I do beg of you, Mr. Speaker, not to accelerate the giving of a Ruling until you are satisfied about all substantial points that have been raised. I have raised this by way of a preliminary, but I have a number of points which I may make in a collective statement, a single statement, afterwards. I beg of you not to respond to the totalitarian appeal of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker

So far the point of order raised is concerned with the Privilege attaching to certain Lords Amendments. I have drawn the attention of the House to those Amendments and, if necessary, I can do so again. But having considered the matter with the best care I can, I am forced to the conclusion that if the House agrees to the Amendments, either seriatim or, as here proposed, en bloc, it does, by agreeing to the Lords Amendments, waive its Privileges. Then all that can be done to protect the future is to see that a special entry is made in the Journals. The House may take it as an additional reason for voting against Amendments en bloc that they do raise questions of Privilege which it may not be prepared to waive, but, on the other hand, I am quite sure that if this procedure is followed and the House votes en bloc for the Amendments and carries them by a majority, that is a decision of the House and Privilege, as far as it is applicable, is waived.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

On a point of order. When you proposed earlier to make your statement, Mr. Speaker, I was favourable to that being done, but in my view something very serious has arisen as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr.H. Morrison) brought for ward. I think that in order to facilitate business, it would be better to confine our selves to this very narrow issue of the Lords Amendments in order to obtain your Ruling on that before we begin to deal with the Motion. If you agree with that reasoning, I want to ask you this: I understand you have ruled that there are seven Lords Amendments subject to Privilege. If so, will they be so subject if the Motion is carried for the limitation of time, and, if so, will you be good enough to quote precedents to the House and refer us to Erskine May?

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)—and I hope without prejudicing my right to make a submission to you about the other challenge to this Motion which I made the other day—may I submit a point arising out of what you last said about protection in the future? I want to submit that if you rule against my right hon. Friend's sub mission that this Motion is out of order because it is a breach of the Privilege of this House, then of course there can be no protection whatever in the future, because on that assumption any Government at any time can repeat what this Government are doing today and rely on their majority on the back benches in order to force it through by a vote in the Division Lobby, thus depriving the minority of what would be their rights if you were to do other wise.

For the reason that the Ruling you give today on this point is so important, since it means that if you once rule that this kind of Motion is no breach of Privilege by itself it can be put down by any Executive at any time, it would seem to mean that we are going back to the position as it was before the famous Resolution of 1671. It would mean that matters which have been regarded as not debatable be cause there is a breach of the Privileges of this House have become, for the first time in more than two centuries, a matter to be decided by whichever side of the House happens to have a majority of seats at any particular moment.

In view of that, may I respectfully and humbly submit to you that it may be a point which you would prefer not to decide today on the basis of argument or submissions made in this way? It is a constitutional point of the utmost importance with the greatest significance for constitutional Parliaments of the future. I submit to you that it would be proper that this matter should now be adjourned so that you could consider your Ruling on the point that has been raised. I am amazed to see that the Minister of Transport should see anything amusing in that, because it has to be remembered that we are in this difficulty only because of the refusal of the Government to grant one more day.

The Prime Minister

Might I respectfully ask you whether it would not be a great help to the House to have your considered Ruling on the question?

Mr. Speaker

I would say, in reply, that the considered Ruling deals with the general position and so far we have got to the suggestion raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the matter of the Lords Amendments involving Privilege. I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have said. The truth is that the House cannot act in breach of its Privilege, and if the Motion proposed by the Allocation of Time Order is carried at the end of the day the House has automatically waived its Privilege in regard to Amendments which are involved in it.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked for a precedent. I do not know of any case in which Lords Amendments have been agreed to en bloc —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— although there are two instances of them being disagreed en bloc—in 1906 and 1909. But it is not beyond the power of this House to order that we agree with them en bloc.

Therefore, I must adhere to my Ruling and I would advise the House, as time is getting on, if there is no other point regarding it to proceed, and I must consider the matter of Privilege settled.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule whether this Motion is in order in view of the statement you have just made?

Mr. Speaker

I do not know of a precedent for applying a time-table order to Lords Amendments, except the contrary one of disagreeing to them en bloc, and that does not involve a time table. But the fact that there is no precedent for a thing does not mean that it is out of order. If the House agrees to the Order that is proposed by the Government, the House will be creating a precedent, but it is not out of order to start something.

Mr. H. Morrison

In these circumstances, you having kindly considered the argument and given your Ruling, we must of course, for the time being, accept it: but I think, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I must intimate to the House—without the slightest disrespect to you, Sir—that we do regard this of such profound importance that it may be necessary for us to put a Motion down declaratory of the rights of this House—which only shows how foolish it is for Governments to think they are saving time when they are not.

I desire with great respect—and I will do it as briefly as I can—to raise with you a number of points—

The Prime Minister

On the point of order. May I ask that we should have your Ruling which you were about to read when you were interrupted on a point of order by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)? Can we not go forward with this discussion on the basis of knowing what your considered Ruling is?

Several Hon. Members rose

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have so far dealt with one point of order. I have a Ruling on the main issue, but I think I should like to hear what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South says.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

I am very grateful that you personally, Mr. Speaker, are willing to listen to representations and, therefore, to pay respect to the rights of the House.

The series of points which I wish to raise on the point that this Motion should not be proposed are as follows. I understand that you took the view the other day that as the Motion begins by referring to "The proceedings," these are part of the proceedings on the Bill. It is true that the original Order governing the proceedings on the Bill had that opening, but one must take the Order as a whole, and the general context of the Order, and immediately after having declared that the Order covered proceedings of the Bill it then proceeded to specify the maximum time which could be taken on three stages—the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading. At no time was there any declaration as to the maximum time which should be taken on the Lords Amendments; nor indeed were the Lords Amendments mentioned in the Motion at all.

There is the other point that surely we all contemplated that the original Order applied to the proceedings in the House until the Bill was passed; and my understanding was that in response to a point of order raised the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who was arguing, as he had a perfect right to do, in a certain direction, you held that he was out of order on the ground that the Bill had been passed when it received its Third Reading. At that point the Bill passed out of the possession of this House and passed to another place.

As I said, all these stages were specified, but the Lords Amendments were not mentioned. Therefore, it is our submission that the Lords Amendments are separate from the House of Commons consideration of the Bill up to its passing—its consideration at earlier stages, and to which the Allocation of Time Order originally passed properly applied. Moreover, it is the case, to the best of my recollection—I can be corrected if I am wrong—that no Minister of the Crown at the time—[Interruption] It is a little inconvenient for the Prime Minister to have rather noticeable and hearable conversations over there. Further, I really do not want to hear his private tactical conversations with the Leader of the House; I do not think it is decent on my part to know. I wish he would do it more quietly or go to another place to do it.

It is the case that when the Motion was moved no Minister of the Crown mentioned the possibility of the Order applying to Amendments from their Lordships' House. I am perfectly certain that not a single Member of this House contemplated it applying to their Lordships Amendments: and that, therefore, while this proposal is an invention out of certain wording of the Order that may or may not be held to apply to it—I am very doubtful about it—it is something which was not contemplated.

I submit that it is a precedent of grave constitutional importance. The provision for supplementary orders to the original Order dealt with the report of the Business Committee, which is significant. My belief is that the provision—I had something to do with this when I was a Minister of the Crown—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but I have never done this, and I would not have done it. If the Government pass this Motion, I must reserve all rights for a future Labour Government, though I profoundly hope that in the interests of Parliament it will not be necessary or expedient for any Labour Government to use them. But if the Conservative Party takes rights to itself it cannot deny them to its successors if that necessity should arise.

As I was saying, I have had a hand in the drafting of Guillotines, much to my sorrow; I hate the things. My recollection is that this provision about supplementary orders was to cover circumstances in which, in my mind, there might be a change of the House of Commons time-table involved up to the passing of the Bill. Quite frankly, the point I had most in mind was that it might, as progress continued, be desirable to give the Opposition more time for their criticisms of the provisions of the Bill, and, therefore, to vary the original Guillotine.

Never did I dream that this provision, which it was right to include to cover any unanticipated circumstances—neither did anybody on the other side of the House, or any Minister of the Crown dream—would be used by the Government for this unheard-of purpose—a purpose for which it has never been used before. The precedent of the Liberal Government previously in taking all the Amendments as a whole may be relevant to the single question, but it is not relevant to the question of the Allocation of Time Order; it has nothing whatever to do with it.

The provision for a supplementary order was, in my view, to cover possible technical faults in drafting or any contemplated change in the allocation of time, possibly in favour of the Opposition. This supplementary Order is brought forward without any mention of the Business Committee provided for in Standing Orders; and there is no opportunity for us to discuss how the time shall be allocated, though goodness knows there is not much time to allocate. The Business Committee is completely set aside.

The next point is that it is provided that their Lordships' Amendments are to be put as a whole. I beg you, Sir, to consider the point as to what position we are to be in at 10 o'clock, or 10.30, or whatever the hour may be. There will be left under consideration, so far as I can tell, a substantial number of Amendments from another place. Under the original Guillotine, and under Guillotines within my experience, it is true that there comes a time when the Guillotine falls; at that point all Opposition Amendments are wiped out—that is rough luck on the Opposition—but the Government Amendments are put seriatim one by one, and we can vote on them for or against, according to the merits of the case.

There are some of their Lordships Amendments with which we agree and would acquiesce in, and there are others with which we do not agree and which we would not acquiesce in and would vote against. Can you, Sir, give us any guidance, in responding to the points of order, on what we are to do later? Are we to vote for and against particular proposals or are we to be so totalitarian that we have to vote for or against the whole lot, irrespective of the immediate Issue of the case? If it comes to that point we shall vote against the lot, not on the merits of the case, not on any merits at all, but as a protest against the procedure which the Government are proceeding to take.

I submit that this process of putting the Lords Amendments as a whole is very much like the Hitlerite Reichstag. It is, so far as I know—perhaps some other hon. Member on this side of the House, or more likely on the other side, will know—very similar to the Cortes of Spain under the present regime; and presumably it is something like the procedure—if this is any comfort to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is a point they have to keep in mind—of the Supreme Soviet. I think it would be in accordance with their procedure.

Finally, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the matter in its broadest constitutional form. I know this is a serious point which you will have to weigh in your consideration. There is always this about the British Constitution, that it is a great Constitution, but it is unwritten. I am a great admirer of it, but nevertheless it is the case that if in this House a majority goes wrong; if a majority takes liberties; if a majority is determined to destroy the British Constitution, it can do so in this House alone. That I admit, and I know to be the case. Therefore, there may be occasions upon which the protection of the House; the protection of our constitutional liberties; the protection of the Constitution, may be the duty of Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons himself.

I wish to submit to you, Sir, as guardian of the rights and privileges of this House, how proud we are at the beginning of Parliament when we claim from the Sovereign that the rights and privileges of this House be upheld, and the Sovereign responds that they shall be upheld. I ask you to protect those rights, as against the rights of the present majority, by preserving the rights of the present Opposition—and, incidentally, those of any Opposition that may follow hereafter—and I ask you on the particular grounds I have submitted and on the broad constitutional ground to which I have referred to rule this Motion out of order and not to permit it to be moved.

Mr. S. Silverman rose

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps it would be convenient were I to say now what I have to say, because time is running on and there are other matters to be discussed.

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has said. He directed my attention to the merits of this Motion and whether the House should pass it or not. With that I have nothing to do. I have only to deal with the procedural issue involved. For me to be asked to protect the Constitution to the extent of ruling out of order something which is not out of order by the rules of the House was not, I think, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. What I have said, or what I propose to say, is this.

The Motion before the House is founded on the Order of the House of 24th November. That Order commences with the words: That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Transport Bill. The Order then sets out the number of days allotted for the stages of the Bill; Committee, Consideration and Third Reading. The first 14 paragraphs of the Order set out incidental matters governing proceedings on those stages.

Paragraph 15 provides for a Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing that Order, and it is governed, as are the other paragraphs, by the opening words of the Order which I have read. The first question therefore is whether the consideration of the Lords Amendments are remaining proceedings on the Transport Bill? The answer to that must be in the affirmative.

The Order itself makes no allotment of days for consideration of the Lords Amendments, and indeed could not properly do so, because it could not be assumed that in fact the Bill would be amended in the Lords. Nor if it were so assumed could the number and extent of the Amendments be forecast. Paragraph 15 of the Order is therefore drawn in wide terms.

If I may I would step aside and say that I do not know whether the Minister or the House appreciated that when the Bill was going through, but it seems to me that some draftsman had that in mind in this and in previous Orders. Paragraph 15 of the Order is therefore drawn in wide terms and permits a motion supplementing the Order inter alia by making an Allocation of Time Order for the consideration of Lords Amendments if there are remaining proceedings on the Transport Bill.

I say again, it is for the House to decide whether this Motion should be passed, but I must Rule that the Motion is procedurally in order.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you have directed your mind to the question of whether or not Lords Amendments are proceedings on the Bill. Unless they are proceedings on the Bill, obviously this Motion is out of order, because it is really an Amendment to the previous Motion which deals only with the proceedings on the Bill.

Originally Bills in this House were founded on petitions and a Bill is merely the formal form of a petition. In those circumstances a Bill is finished and done with when it has left this House. It was. originally the process of this House to provide for an engrossment of the Bill, a Motion for engrossment, and finally the Motion, "That the Bill be passed."

If one looks at the old authorities one finds they all provide that there may be no further proceedings on a Bill once the Motion of the House, "That the Bill be passed" has been carried. What then happens is that an identical Bill, which for convenience is generally the same Bill, an identical petition, is presented in their Lordships' House. If in fact these Bills are identical then, and only then, will the Royal Assent be given to the matter as an Act.

It is a little difficult, because this has so long been assumed, but the fact is that there is no acual precedent which shows exactly how that arose. I have not been able to find a matter which deals exactly with the point. But there is, in Hatsell's Precedents, a precedent quoted which runs very close to the matter we are here considering. Then the question arose, not as to whether Lords Amendments were proceedings on a Bill, but whether it was necessary for the Lords to communicate to the Commons whether they had agreed to a Bill. If, of course, the proceedings on the one Bill were one and the same thing, it would not be necessary for each House to communicate to the other House whether they had agreed to the Bill before Royal Assent could be given.

In Hatsell's Precedents, in the second Volume at page 339, it states: On Friday, the 29th of January, 1768, the King came to the House of Lords to pass the Bills ready for the Royal Assent, amongst which were some that came originally from the House of Commons, to which the Lords had agreed; the message, signifying the agreement, could not be received by the House of Commons, as the Speaker could not collect forty Members, to enable him to take the Chair; the Speaker therefore sent to the House of Lords, to desire that those Bills might be stopt, and not offered; notwithstanding which, the Clerk was directed to proceed, and the Bills accordingly received the Royal Assent. The Speaker (Sir John Cust) at his return, was very angry, and said, that on such another occasion, he would, at the Bar, acquaint the King and Lords, that no -message had been brought to the Commons of the Lords having agreed to the Bill: Lord Marchmont and Lord Sandys (both Lords of great experience in Parliament) replied, that when both Houses had passed a Bill, it was not in the power of any person to withhold it from being offered for the Royal Assent, or (as they expressed themselves), to take it off the Table"— and Hatsell adds, I believe they were right in this opinion. That, I say with great respect, is an opinion of a very old authority which the House ought to be very chary of disregarding. Quite clearly the position is that these are two quite different processes. An identical document is passed by either House and if it is discovered by the Crown, as it were, that the documents are identical then in fact the Royal Assent is given, because there has been a petition from each House of Parliament in regard to the matter.

In my submission the position is that each House in fact petitions the Crown in a certain form. Indeed, if we look at the Private Bill procedure one sees that largely carried out to this day, and if those two petitions are in identical form, then, and only then, will the Royal Assent be given.

If there is any difference between the petitions to the Crown of the two Houses, the one House consults the other, and the very fact that all these difficulties have arisen in regard to privilege and everything else is, in my submission, the obvious reason why, when the House is considering Lords Amendments, we are not engaged in proceedings on a Bill. The Bill which they are considering can only be the document which was submitted to the House, and, in that document, no question of the privileges of the House could arise.

What happens now is that, somewhere else, another document, resembling this but not entirely resembling it, is originated, and that document contains various matters which have been properly originated in the House of Commons. If the House agrees to that, it does so by making a special entry in the Journal, and that, surely is an indication that what we are considering are two different forms of petitions to the Crown, and it is an attempt by the two Houses to get an agreement on them that results in our deciding to take into consideration the petition to the Crown.

In these circumstances, it is my submission that these are not proceedings on the Bill, because the only Bill which was before the House when the Motion was moved—and this Motion was moved relative to the actual Bill before the House—could have been the Bill which was before the House of Commons. It cannot refer to a Bill which subsequently comes here after consideration in another place. In these circumstances, I submit that you were wrong in the decision you made, and that, in fact, these proceedings on these Lords Amendments are not proceedings on a Bill as originally moved in this House.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order.

The Prime Minister rose

Mr. Speaker

I should like to point out to the House that I have considered the matter very carefully, and I have given a Ruling, but it is for the House to decide how to use the limited time. The Motion has been moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes; I called on the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and he moved his Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. He did, and paragraph 15 of the original Order refers to the commencement of the proceedings, and that is when the Motion is moved. I do wish to ask the House, in their own interests and in the interests of the Opposition, to pass on to the consideration of their Amendments.

May I say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that I am very interested in what he said and in his old precedent. I think it is relevant to the procedure that must be followed before the Royal Assent. One part of that procedure is that the two Houses should agree as to the form of the Bill, and that is why the Lords Amendments on the Bill come down to us for us to consider them. I am perfectly certain in my own mind that consideration of Lords Amendments, though not a stage of a Bill, is nevertheless part of the proceedings on a Bill within the meaning of this Order, and that is the foundation of the Ruling which I have given.

Mr. S. Silverman

I think you did call me a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister would not give way. I submit that the Ruling you are now giving—that these are proceedings on the Transport Bill, and that, therefore, the Order of 24th November can be supplemented in order to apply to them—is inconsistent with your own Ruling on the same point only last week. I should like to draw your attention to what you said then, and to make the point clear.

On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) sought to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned," in order to call attention to a certain new fact. Had these, in fact, been proceedings upon the Transport Bill, there is no doubt that the kind of matter that he wished to raise was such as would have persuaded the Chair to allow him to move that Motion. You intervened to stop him, and your words in doing so will be found in column 1185, of HANSARD for 22nd April. You said: The business before the House is the consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill which has, apart from these Amendments, already passed both Houses of Parliament. This is not a stage in the Bill. This is the consideration of Amendments to a Bill which has already passed. I ventured to ask a question with regard to that. That question, which was based upon the assumption that your present Ruling was the correct one, will be found in column 1186. I said: With respect, in the course of the Ruling which you gave to my right hon. Friend a few moments ago, you stated that we are dealing with a Bill that has already passed. I want to submit that, no doubt inadvertently, you gave an incorrect statement of the position. The Bill has not passed. It has been given a Second Reading in this House. It has passed through certain proceedings in another place, and certain Amendments have been proposed, and the House is now being asked to consider whether discussion of the Bill shall proceed. You did not accept that, and, in column 1187, you said: In reply to the first point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); if he consults the Journals of the House for the day on which this Bill was read the Third time here, he will see it entered there as 'Read the Third time, and passed.' So the Bill has passed this House. Later, you said: This is a serious point. The Bill has also gone to another place and has been amended there, and we are now considering Amendments, but what I am anxious to point out to the House is that we are dealing with Lords Amendments, and this is a different position from an ordinary stage in the procedure of a Bill through this House. We are dealing with a Bill to which, in the main, the House has given its assent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1953; Vol. 514. cc. 1185–87.] The House accepted that Ruling, and my hon. Friend, therefore, did not proceed with a Motion which, but for that Ruling, he would obviously have been entitled to move. I submit, with great respect, that if what we are doing today and what we were then doing were proceedings upon the Bill, my hon. Friend should not have been stopped from moving his Motion. If, on the other hand, they are not proceedings upon the Bill, the Order of 24th November exhausted itself on the day on which this House gave a Third Reading to the Bill, and that it is very difficult to say that what we are doing is proceedings on a Bill for one purpose and not proceedings on a Bill for another purpose.

Mr. Speaker

I must answer that point, and say that there is no inconsistency whatever in the two statements. I was pointing out to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that we were dealing with Lords Amendments, and that the Adjournment Motion that he wanted to propose must be relevant to one of the Lords Amendments. I said we were not dealing with a stage in a Bill, and I repeat that, but have said that the consideration of Lords Amendments is a proceeding on the Transport Bill.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

I am not rising in order further to contest your Ruling, but merely to ask for further clarification for our guidance, arising out of what happened last Friday morning. Are we now to understand that, because it appears that the constitutional relationship between this House and another place has been gravely affected by this Measure, if any Guillotine Motion is moved in this knowledge under the original Order—I am not speaking about this Motion—it must be implied that there is a power on the part of the Government, under a subsequent order made under the original Order, to prevent any consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill? If that be the Ruling which arises naturally out of what you have been good enough to say today, then it is a grave constitutional position, as I tried to say on Friday morning, which will have repercussions outside the House.

5.0 p.m.

Secondly, in view of the fact that under the original Order there was set up a Business Committee—which at least is a partial protection for the Opposition in deciding on what parts of the Bill it would like to spend the most time, and which Committee met on the previous day—and as there is now no Business Committee and, therefore, there has been no opportunity even to allocate the small amount of time at our disposal, does not that mean that the Government themselves are by a further provision in this Order subsequent upon the provisional Order, not only denying to the Opposition the opportunity of discussing Lords Amendments, but also any means of indicating which one of the Lords Amendments it would like to discuss even in the small amount of time put at its disposal?

If I am right in what I have said, Mr. Speaker—and all I am asking is whether you agree with me or not—is it not a matter which we must always take into account when any Order on a Bill is to be considered by the House?

Mr. Speaker

First of all, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government can prevent the consideration of Lords Amendments. In the technical sense, no, because unless the Lords Amendments are considered and dealt with in some way or other the Bill cannot travel between the two Houses. It is quite true that timetable Motions passed by the House are binding on the House, and the only guarantee against a harsh operation of such Motions is the good sense of the House and what the House will agree to. I have never seen a time-table Motion which was not objected to, and I think hon. Members will agree that this should be avoided if possible, because it is the usual custom of the House to try and agree.

The right hon. Gentleman also drew my attention to the Business Committee. The Standing Order providing for the Business Committee refers to the stages of the Bill in this House, namely, to Committee and consideration. This is another proceeding on the Bill, and therefore the Business Committee Standing Order does not apply to these proceedings. I do not know how, unless by agreement, we can decide what Amendments to take.

Mr. Bevan

Is not that, Mr. Speaker, a Ruling of the utmost significance, because, first of all, we are told that the Business Committee Standing Order can apply to the stages of the Bill, but does not apply to the proceedings. A distinction is now being made between stages in procedure. By saying that the original Order applies to the procedure of the Bill and the Business Committee Order only to the stages of the Bill, it means—there being no Business Committee on the proceedings of the Bill—that, therefore, there is no opportunity whatever for the Opposition to indicate on which of the Lords Amendments it wants to spend the most time. Therefore, we have not only a quantitative curtailment, indeed, quantative abolition, it may be, of the right of the House of Commons to discuss the Lords Amendments, but a qualitative limitation on them concerning which of the Lords Amendments it considers ought to be discussed.

As it is the first time that any timetable Order has been given this interpretation, all we want to find out is if the same language is used in another Guillotine Motion at another time we shall have to interpret that Motion in the light of the significance of the Ruling you have given today. It seems to us from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and the interpretation you have given that a profound constitutional change has taken place in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.

Mr. Crookshank rose

Mr. Richard Adams (Wandsworth, Central)

The first point of order I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House rose to move the notice of Motion on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) interrupted, and, in response to that interruption, you said that in view of his submission you would not propose the Question from the Chair until the points of order had been dealt with. Therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that the two hours laid down in this Motion only begin to run when, in fact, the discussion of this Motion starts. Perhaps you would be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling on that before I submit my nine points of order of which I gave you notice.

Mr. Crookshank

When I rose, I at once said, "I beg to move." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good hon. Members saying I did not say it. They may not have heard it, but I said it. It was after that—

Mr. Adams

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I do not know which hon. Member is addressing the House. I called Mr. Crookshank.

Mr. Crookshank

I now—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the right hon. Member is going to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Crookshank

I was hoping to be able to continue the speech which I began.

Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Member has already moved the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I heard him. I said that I would not propose the Question until I was satisfied about the point of order, but that does not prevent the two hours from running. The proceedings on any Motion moved by any Member of the Government for supplementing this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been moved."] The right hon. Member moved the Motion. That is the point I have been trying to draw to the attention of the House.

Mr. Adams

On a point of order. Since you are still accepting points of order on this Motion, Mr. Speaker, may I now submit to you the nine points of order which I previously submitted to you?

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me with his nine points of order, I have covered them in what I have already said, but, if he likes, I will write to him in extenso.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I gather, Mr. Speaker, that you agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had moved his Motion and made his speech. If that is so, has he then exhausted his right to speak in the House?

Mr. Speaker

He was interrupted by a point of order.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Is it a new one?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, Sir. I have two points of order to raise, one of which is connected with the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wands-worth, Central (Mr. Adams) when you said that although the right hon. Gentleman was moving his Motion you would not impose it on the House. I think I am correct in saying that all hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House understood that to be a clear indication that the discussion would not begin until you proposed the Question. I wish to ask you this question. Until you had proposed the Question to the House would it not have been out of order for any hon. Member to have expressed an opinion on the actual Motion moved by the Leader of the House? We could not begin to discuss it until you had proposed it to the House. Therefore, I submit that the two hours cannot possibly begin until, by proposing the Question, you have made it possible for us to discuss the Motion.

Mr. Speaker

My Ruling is simply that the two hours run, by virtue of the Order, from when the proceedings are commenced: … shall … be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced. The proceedings commenced when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Motion. On the point about delay in proposing the Question, it is not my Custom to propose, nor would I propose, a Question to the House if I thought it was out of order. Therefore I delayed proposing it until I had heard what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had to say. I think that was entirely proper. The time runs from when the proceedings commenced.

Mr. Crookshank

May I continue my speech? I hope the House will now—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has a point of order.

Mr. Stewart

I wish to raise a point of order. I think there is ground of objection to the Motion which has not previously been raised and which did not occur to me until I heard your Ruling on an earlier point. I understood you then to rule that it is proper for the House to be invited to accept Lords Amendments en bloc despite the fact that some of those Amendments may have the assent of the entire House and others may be strongly disagreed to, partly be-because they involve questions of Privilege. We have heard, and have of course accepted, the Ruling you have given that it is proper and in order, although quite unprecedented, for that to be done.

I think it will have occurred to you that that is an extraordinary modification of the way in which the House has, up to now, exercised its Privileges. It further appears from a subsequent Ruling of yours that the power which the Government have by their Allocation of Time Order, to put us into that extraordinary position and to make that extraordinary modification, arises from an Order which the House passed on 24th November. It would appear, therefore, upon adding those two Rulings together, that in the Order of 24th November there was implicit the possibility of the House's being required very seriously to modify its way of protecting its own Privileges.

I would ask, first, if you would be good enough to tell us why it was that you did not on that occasion draw the House's attention to the fact that it was doing something which would very seriously affect its way of protecting its own Privileges? I would have thought that if the Order of 24th November contained implicitly in itself so serious a modification of our procedure on Privilege that the House's attention ought to have been drawn to it and some appropriate entry should have been made.

Since that was not done, and since neither by you nor by anybody else was it drawn to the attention of the House that we were dealing with a matter of Privilege, the points I put to you are that it cannot be assumed that the Order of 24th November did, in fact, have any effect upon Privilege because no such notice was taken and no such warning was given; that the Motion of 24th November was in fact defective, that this Allocation of Time Order is based upon a Motion which was defective, and that therefore not only would this Allocation of Time Order be out of order, but possibly all the proceedings taken by the House under the Order of 24th November might be out of order and might have to be repeated.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

To the question why did I not draw the attention of the House to the effect that the Order might have on Privilege, it is a sincere and honest answer that it never occurred to me. That is the truth of it. On the other hand, as I have pointed out, the House has by no means abandoned its control over Privileges. It will have an opportunity of voting for or against a block of Lords Amendments, some of which, I have indicated, involve matters of Privilege. The House has absolute control over these Privileges—the majority decides.

Mr. Ellis Smith

May I raise a narrow point arising out of your statement, Mr. Speaker, which I listened to with great care? I would be out of order in raising any question on the Motion, seeing that it has not yet been moved. You must have given great consideration during the week-end to all that is involved in these proceedings. Have you considered the aspect of it to which I shall refer, and the implications arising out of it? You said there were seven points of Privilege raised in the Lords Amendments. Can we have an unequivocal answer whether Mr. Speaker considers that he is protecting the rights of Members of this House in allowing Lords Amendments to be put en bloc in this fashion?

Mr. Speaker

It is not for the Speaker to say whether or not the House will waive its Privileges. That is for the House. My duty is to draw the attention of the House to the matter, and that I have done.

Mr. Crookshank rose

Mr. Bing

I merely thought it might help the House to come to a right and proper decision on this matter if you could give me guidance on a point of order. As the Lords Amendments will not be put separately, it will not be possible for the Clerks to be authorised to make the normal entries in the Journals. If those entries were not made, the Privilege of the Commons of deciding that they alone can deal with financial matters would go. I submit that that is the reason why those entries are always made. The House ought to know whether in fact, if the Amendments are all put en bloc, it will be possible for the Clerks to make the usual entry in regard to Privilege having been waived, specific entries, where the attention of the House has not been called to them by you, and where the matter has been dealt with in an omnibus fashion.

Mr. Speaker

I will see that the necessary entries are made in such a way as to safeguard the position.

Mr. Crookshank

May I now continue the speech which I began at 3.57 p.m. with the words "I beg to move"? I propose to be very short and not to fill up all the remaining time, although if I accepted some of the arguments which were put forward in points of order in such an important matter it would not be unreasonable for the mover to speak at length. I want to be very fair. Apart from that, a good many of the points which I would have made in explanation have emerged in the Rulings which Mr. Speaker gave. For example, the Motion arises out of one of 24th November, by which there is no doubt that two hours is the maximum. Of course, we do not have to take the whole of the two hours which could be devoted to this Motion before we come on to the Amendments themselves.

It is true, as Mr. Speaker pointed out. that the original words in the Motion of 24th November did not refer to Lords Amendments. Paragraph 15 of that Motion was a general precautionary power for varying and supplementing, if need be, that Order. It was made to deal with any situation which might arise. I think it was Mr. Speaker, and not one of those who raised points of order, who used the phrase: "to cover unanticipated circumstances." That is exactly what we are dealing with; today, unanticipated circumstances.

Never before in the long years that I have been in this House has any attempt been made by any Opposition to filibuster Lords Amendments at all. It never has been the case in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor now."] Perhaps I might be allowed to give some statistics before I close. So, having wisely taken precautionary powers, this is the occasion on which it is necessary to use them. With regard to the Motion itself we put in the proviso in case there was an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. There was not today, and so we need not bother about that. The Motion says that Mr. Speaker should put the single Question after four hours.

I see that the Opposition have put down an alternative of: or at half-past ten o'clock, whichever is the later. We had calculated that, perhaps with points of order and so on, we should have got on to this Motion at four o'clock, which is just about the time that we did in fact get on to it. Two hours on that made it six o'clock and another four hours made it ten o'clock; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) cares to' move his second Amendment about half-past ten o'clock the Government will be very pleased to accept it. If we do not take up all the time now there will be that amount extra for the Lords Amendments.

I put it to the House that in all the circumstances this Motion is fully justified. If the Opposition have any doubt about that I ask them to examine their own consciences, because they really have aided, abetted and encouraged the most gigantic filibuster on these Lords Amendments. Nothing like this has occurred at any rate in the last 28 years or, as far as I know, ever before. What has happened in fact is that the Opposition have. one might say perhaps cleverly—I do not know what the right adverb might be there—exploited a weakness in House of Commons procedure. They have tried, and with some success we must all admit, within the rules of order to reopen issues on the Bill itself in a way far more than had ever previously been thought possible on Lords Amendments. There evidently is some weakness in our procedure. They have exploited it, and this is the result.

But if the procedure of this House is reduced to a mockery, and I say deliberately that that is what happened, then the House—[Interruption.] I want to be brief so as to leave time to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South. I hope that the Opposition will let me say what I wish to say. I intend to say it. If procedure is reduced to a mockery it has always been the case in the past that the House has had to devise ways and means to prevent itself from being stultified. As I pointed out when I spoke on Thursday night, if we went at the pace at which we have been going, and even if what are from the Government's point of view the necessary closures were moved and accepted by the Chair—and of course that rests with the Chair—we should require some 90 more hours of time to conclude the Lords Amendments on this Bill.

We have so far. out of the 71 on the printed list, cleared 13 Lords Amendments and 14 Opposition Amendments to the Lords Amendments. I do not want to go through them all, but I wish to make this point. Of these 71 Lords Amendments 24 are consequential or drafting: of the rest seven were put forward as a result of representations by the British Transport Commission and some of them are known to have Opposition support, at any rate, in principle; five were put forward to meet Opposition criticism; three more went some way to meet the Opposition point of view; and others are either non-controversial or merely clarify the existing provisions of the Bill. That is what all the bother has been about.

That being the nature of the Amendments, we considered that two days was reasonable and fair. Many of my hon. Friends thought it was more than reasonable, but that was the time we proposed. On Thursday the Government first suggested concluding the business that night by some arrangements, and then later suggested that we should finish tonight by some arrangement, but that was not accepted. Therefore, a Motion of this kind clearly became necessary. We ask the House, by accepting the Motion, to complete the proceedings today.

Taking the Lords Amendments as a whole, it cannot possibly be claimed by anyone that they are either revolutionary in their nature or inconsistent with the Bill's original underlying policy.

Mr. Bevan

We still object to them.

Mr. Crookshank

Object to them, that is all right; but one does not have to object for ever and ever and talk at undue length on every single Amendment whether one approves of them or not. I should like to make it clear, because this is an important point, that the other night, when I foreshadowed this Motion, the right hon Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South said—I leave out the words which are not relevant— This is … going to mean that important Amendments … like the great Clause which we are now considering … will not be properly discussed here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 1579.] Sir, we spent seven hours on 22nd April and seven hours and 10 minutes on 23rd April, and we have not finished this Clause yet. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that 14½ hours so far—or 18½ hours if we include the various Adjournment Motions connected with the Clause—is insufficient for discussing a Lords Amendment which is not disagreeable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think that is the whole and sufficient answer.

There is one other general consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has several times said, "What is the hurry? Why do it this week? Why not next week? Any old week will do." Usually Lords Amendments to Commons Bills and Commons Amendments to Lords Bills fall to be discussed towards the end of the Session. They are, therefore, up against a time factor, because neither House wants to lose a Bill on which it has spent a great deal of time.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South will accept this. He has said it himself. I think he gave evidence to the Select Committee on procedure and said it there. He will accept that it was a wise thing and right from a Parliamentary point of view that the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, should bring forward their major Bills as soon as possible after the speech from the Throne and deal with them as early in the Session as possible so as to clear them out of the way and then afterwards ask Parliament to deal with other business in an orderly manner.

That is exactly what we have done this year. The result is that it brings the Lords Amendments before this House long before the end of the Session, as we are now, and without the possibility of the time factor having any influence on the amount of time devoted to their discussion. Therefore, it allows, as it has done on this occasion, delaying tactics rather than hustling tactics.

That shows some weakness in our procedure. That is why we propose this Motion today. There is no shadow of doubt that the Opposition have had ample time and every opportunity. The rights of the minority have been amply safeguarded. There have been 35½ hours already at the disposal of the Opposition on these Lords Amendments—and that is on Amendments which are either drafting, consequential, concessions to right hon. Gentlemen opposite or part concessions. Nothing new which was obnoxious to the Opposition has been brought in. It has been all give and yielding, more or less to the Opposition.

If we are not to make a farce of all our debates, a limit must be set when this sort of thing occurs. I regret very much indeed that the generous proposals that we made on Thurstday were not accepted, but in all the circumstances the Government have no option to proposing this Motion that the proceedings should be brought to a conclusion today.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I rise to oppose the Motion, and I must do so as briefly as possible because unfortunately we have very little time at our disposal as the time given to points of order must come out of the time devoted to this Motion. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for indicating that he will accept the Amendment to make the hour 10.30 p.m., which merely follows the precedent that was established in the original Allocation of Time Order.

The right hon. Gentleman says that we have been using an undue amount of time. In fact, he accuses us flatly of filibustering. I do not deal with this point at length because I have often dealt with it before, but the fact is that the Bill was wrongly handled earlier on. There was the Guillotine, and a whole lot of things of importance were deliberately started in another place which ought to have been started in this Chamber. Consequently that has tended to increase the discussion here.

I should like to quote from the Leader of the House when he used language far different from the language about filibustering that he now uses. He said on 21st April: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the general tone of the debate and that matters of substance have been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that somewhat more time was being given to the consideration of the Lords Amendments on this Bill than was usual, and explained why it was. We accept that this is not quite the same as other Bills for which there has not been a time-table in the earlier stages—that, of course, is obvious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,. 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 977.] There is no sign there of an allegation of filibustering. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman pays a compliment to us by implying that the general tone of the debate was good, and that matters—

Mr. Crookshank

What date was that?

Mr. Morrison

It was on 21st April.

Mr. Crookshank

A lot has happened since then.

Mr. Morrison

As a matter of fact the spirit of the discussion since that time and of the speeches on the Amendments, has been substantially the same as it was on the first day. There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's point about it being customary for Lords Amendments to have to be dealt with at the end of a Session. That is perfectly true and it rather tends to create a rush. I agree with that. In fact, I gave evidence on that point. I do not like it and I tried to get substantial Bills earlier. But the fact that one had to take Lords Amendments on a Bill quickly at the beginning of August or at the end of July, is no reason why we should do so artificially on this Bill.

Let me remind the Leader of the House, if he does not already know, that the "Scotsman" of today, a Conservative newspaper, states: Most politicians had thought 'the Lords' to be a moribund issue, but their position as an amending Chamber is once again brought into sharp relief by the Transport Bill. A more conciliatory approach from Mr. Crookshank might have averted the trouble the Government now face; for if the 'guillotine' does fall at ten o'clock tomorrow night"— that is, tonight— with most of the Lords Amendments still outstanding, many M.P.'s, not all of them Socialists, will feel that less than justice has been done. That is from an eminently reputable and respectable Scottish newspaper with the editorial opinions of which we on this side do not agree very often. That is that newspaper's view and that will be increasingly the view as time goes on.

The Amendments made to the Bill in another place were substantial. On the question of the offers made by the other side of the House, it is true that the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday offered that day and Monday. In our view that would have meant an undue rush to finish the Bill. We said, "Give us Tuesday as well and then we will agree, and we will terminate the debate at 11 o'clock on Thursday, Monday and Tuesday." Therefore, all this talk about 90-odd hours is nonsense. We were not claiming 90-odd hours. It may be that in the ordinary way 90-odd hours might be occupied. Who can say? We do not know the time that each Amendment will take. But we offered that the Bill should be finished tomorrow. I submit to the House, therefore, that the 90 hours argument is sheer nonsense.

It boils down, therefore, to one House of Commons Parliamentary day. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he keeps it in mind—that, of course, the Government can carry their Motion, and presumably they will do so, but that is not the end of the story. It must not be thought that the Government can arbitrarily save days. The Opposition have still their duty to do and at the end of the time, instead of making a profit out of their Motion, believe me, the Government will make a loss.

I often had conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when I was Leader of the House. He would sometimes say, "The Opposition are asking for so and so." I often, though not always, said straight away, "It is all right." Sometimes I said, "That is unreasonable. I do not think that they have a right to that, you know, and I should have thought that we ought to resist it." He would say, now and again, "Herbert, that is all very well. You can resist them, but they have a little bit of a case —not much I agree—but if you do resist them they will take it out of you on another date and you will lose in the end." On that reasoning I would say, "All right, Willie. Give them what they want."

That is part of the elementary art of leading the House of Commons, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had similar experiences. The trouble with this Leader of the House, with this Chief Whip, if not with this Prime Minister, is that they get a special delight out of saying, "No" to the Opposition. They do not believe how much sweetness and light can be caused and created—[Laughter.]—I am using the words of Matthew Arnold, who was a great writer, by a "Yes" now and again. I submit to them that they are being foolish.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)

It is, of course, not possible to say, "Yes" when one has not been asked for more time. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when one day was suggested by us there was no complaint either in private or across the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had asked for three days, we might have come to some compromise. If one is not asked, how in the world can one give?

Mr. Morrison

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that anything announced by the Government, whether one day or two days, is a definition, and so when these announcements were made as to those days on which the Lords Amendments would be considered, that was all right. That was for that week. Why should I worry about it? But to presume that because I did not say anything about it as acting Leader of the the Opposition, it was therefore accepted as a sufficient time is really wrong.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

Let the right hon. Gentleman ask the Opposition Chief Whip whether he accepts the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the particular negotiations on this subject.

Mr. Morrison

As I understand it, there were no negotiations, except those conducted last Thursday, and between us I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and I have given an accurate account of what happened on those occasions. If our proposition had been accepted, there would not have been any question of 90-odd hours. The Government, of course, will not save the day that they think they will save. It is an illusion, and if the Government insist upon this Motion, which sets aside the authority of this House, they will have passed the legislative initiative to another place.

As to the new Clause, the so-called "Company Clause," that was suggested in part by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) in the Committee stage. In principle it was supported by us. There was ample opportunity for the Minister of Transport to have made a draft Clause between then and the Report stage for, as a matter of fact, the end of the Committee stage was on 18th December and the Report stage did not begin until 4th February.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

It is a complicated Clause. I warned the House that it would be a lengthy one, but that it would give expression to what I thought was the general view of this House. The complications—and no one knows this better than the British Transport Commission—meant a long period of negotiation and argument and, as we have a bicameral system, it seemed prudent to continue the conversations until we had arrived at a wise decision, which we did. We have now spent two days in debate on that particular Clause.

Mr. Morrison

I have two points to make on that question. One is that the Minister had from 18th December to 4th February which, for the sake of bringing it before the House and not leaving it to another place, was surely worth while making an effort about. The second point is that if it is such a complicated Clause and took all this time, to such an extent that the House of Commons is now to be cheated of its consideration, surely we are entitled to have adequate time to consider it? I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

We must have the right of amending Lords Amendments, and the right to discuss them. Now we are taking the matter as a single question. I presume that means that we are asked to vote for or against the whole of the Lords Amendments together, irrespective of the individual merits of each. As we cannot express ourselves on each individual Amendment we shall have to divide against the lot at the end, not on their merits but as a protest against the procedure which is being adopted.

The argument might be that we should not vote at all. That is a nice situation in which to land the House of Commons. It is the logical course, but it is not a fair proposition to put to us. This was not done even on the main Order. The Government Amendments were put seriatim at the end of the Guillotine period. So far as I know, on the Allocation of Time Order itself there is no precedent for the procedure which we are now following. Moreover, it is really an insult to their Lordships' House. They have taken a lot of trouble about the Bill and they have devoted many hours to its discussion. Now they are being told that we are not going to take any notice of their Amendments on their merits; we are not even going to discuss them. It is for another place to consider how far they can protect their rights as a revising Chamber, the Tory Government having said that the Lords Amendments shall not be considered upon their merits.

This is a serious matter. It is a revolutionary constitutional precedent which, in my view, the Conservative Party will regret. It is utterly foolish from the Conservative Party's point of view, as I think it would have been from ours. The Prime Minister once said, before he was an orthodox Conservative—when he was in the process of one of his transitions—that he was a constitutionalist, that being the best middle-of-the-road description he could find. He cannot any longer be described as a constitutionalist; he is unconstitutional.

5.45 p.m.

It is impossible, without prejudice to any further discussion, to go any further in the matter, but I protest with all the earnestness at my command about what is being done. It is a grave injury to the House of Commons; it is a serious assault upon British Parliamentary democracy; it is damaging to our Parliamentary system, and I hope against hope that the House will reject this very grave and serious Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House.

I beg to move, in line 6, after "read," to insert: or at half-past ten o'clock, whichever is the later.

Amendment agreed to.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

It shows what is the state of muddle into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have got themselves, at the end of these extremely lengthy proceedings on the Transport Bill, when, at half-past three this afternoon, they voted against the suspension of the Rule, which vote, if successful, would have denied them the opportunity of securing the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has just obtained.

I commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman in the state of mind he has reached at the end of these lengthy proceedings. He also took part in the general threats and accusations against another place which have characterised these proceedings for the last few hours. But in 1947, when many Amendments to the Transport Bill of that year came back to this House from another place, the Socialist Government were in power and that, surely, was the time when they should have made these vociferous accusations against the other House.

There was opposition; we had two lengthy all night sittings; but the debates were pretty regular and the Closure was not unduly moved. Why?—because the Socialist Government were opposing all the Amendments coming from another place and because we were observing the proper constitutional duties of an Opposition in not indulging in undue provocation. Surely the country will pay no attention whatsoever to the threats and vituperation which have come from Members opposite about the future of the House of Lords. If they had wanted to do something about it they had the opportunity when the House of Lords opposed the 1947 Transport Bill. They did not do it then.

Now we have a situation when their Lordships have offered very worth while, valuable and constructive suggestions to this Bill. My right hon. Friend gave some particulars and I should like to mention a few others. It is important that the House and the country should realise the full extent of these filibustering techniques. Seventy-one Amendments were made to the Bill by their Lordships' House. Twenty-five of these were in the nature of drafting Amendments; others were for the purpose of clarification, or were consequential upon other Amendments.

The remaining 12 all concerned major points which, with the exception of one or two, were fully debated by this House in spite of the Guillotine, or perhaps because of it. The strange thing about a Guillotine or Allocation of Time Order is that it restores proper debate to the House of Commons. It enables at least one-half of the House of Commons to take part in the discussion.

All these 12, with the exception of one or two, were fully debated in Committee—the lifting of the total of B.R.S. vehicles from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.; the sale of B.R.S. vehicles by companies as well as in transport units; the extension of the locus standi of certain local authorities before the Transport Tribunal; the qualification of the 10 per cent, temporary increase in charges to avoid unfair imposition; the composition of the Commission, and the application to Scotland; re-definition of "loss of employment" with regard to safeguarding pension rights; the eleven-twelfths of the B.R.S. fleet which were to get the initial grant of licence; and finally exemption from the levy—a very important one—up to 30 cwt.; all those were fully covered by debates which took place in this House before the Bill was sent to another place.

Statements were made in the national Press over the weekend—particularly by the political commentator in the "Observer," who normally observes the proceedings of this House quite closely, and who ought to be far more responsible in his utterances than he was last Sunday—that their Lordships' House had practically re-drafted the Bill. Those are wholly false and wrong statements. It was in response to pleas made from both sides of this House, and particularly by the Opposition, and in response to pledges given by the Minister that another place formulated their Amendments and performed the excellent job of work on the Bill it did perform.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "put" to the end of the line, and to insert instead thereof, "the Question on each of."

I would then propose to move as a consequential manuscript Amendment: in line 10, at the end, to insert: That the Lords Amendment or the Amendment to the Bill, as the case may be.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, as amended."

The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 276.

Division No. 159.] AYES [5.55 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Cuthbert, W. N. Hornsby-Smilh, Miss M. P.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Horobin, I. M.
Alport, C. J. M. Davidson, Viscountess Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) De la Bère, Sir Rupert Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Deedes, W. F. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J Digby, S. Wingfield Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Arbuthnot, John Dodds-Parker, A. O. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hurd, A. R.
Assheton, Rt. Hen. R. (Blackburn, W.) Donner, P. W. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Doughty, C. J. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Baker, P. A. D. Drayson, G. B. Hyde, Li.-Col. H. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Baldwin, A. E. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Banks, Col. C. Duthie, W. S. Jennings, R.
Barber, Anthony Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir John Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Baxter, A. B. Erroll, F. J. Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Beach, Mai, Hicks Fell, A. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Finlay, Graeme Kaberry, D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Fisher, Nigel Keeling, Sir Edward
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F Kerr, H. W.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lambert, Hon. G.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Ford, Mrs. Patricia Lamb Ion, Viscount
Bennett, William (Woodside) Fort, R. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Foster, John Langlord-Holt, J. A.
Birch, Nigel Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bishop, F. P. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Leather, E. H. C.
Black, C. W. Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Boothby, R. J. G. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Bossom, A. C. Gammans, L. D. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Lindsay, Martin
Boyle, Sir Edward Glyn, Sir Ralph Linstead, H. N
Braine, B. R. Godber, J. B. Llewellyn, D. T.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Gough, C. F. H. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Gower, H. R. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Graham, Sir Fergus Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C. Gridley, Sir Arnold Longden, Gilbert
Browne, Jack (Govan) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Low, A. R. W.
Bullard, D. G. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Burden, F. F. A. Harden, J. R. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hare, Hon. J. H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) McAdden, S. J.
Campbell, Sir David Harris, Reader (Heston) McCallum, Major D.
Carr, Robert Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. s
Cary, Sir Robert Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Macdonald, Sir Peter
Channon, H, Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Harvie-Watt, Sir George McKibbin, A J
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Hay, John Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. Heald, Sir Lionel Maclean, Fitzroy
Cole, Norman Heath, Edward Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Colegate, W. A. Henderson, John (Cathcart) MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Higgs, J. M. C. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Cooper, San. Ldr. Albert Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Cranborne, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hirst, Geoffrey Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Holland-Martin, C. J. Markham, Major S. F
Crouch, R. F. Hollis, M. C. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Marples, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hope, Lord John Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Redmayne, M. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Maude, Angus Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Maudling, R. Remnant, Hon. P. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Renton, D. L. M. Teeling, W.
Mellor, Sir John Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Molson, A. H. E. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Robson-Brown, W. Thomas, P. J. M. (Gonway)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Roper, Sir Harold Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Russell, R. S. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Nicholls, Harmar Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Tilney, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Touche, Sir Gordon
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Turner, H. F. L.
Wield, Basil (Chester) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas Turton, R. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Nugent, G. R. H. Scott, R. Donald Vane, W. M. F.
Nutting, Anthony Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Oakshott, H. D. Shepherd, William Vesper, D. F.
Odey, G. W. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Snadden, W. McN. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Osborne, C. Soames, Capt. C. Watkinson, H. A.
Partridge, E. Spearman, A. C. M. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Speir, R. M. Wellwood, W.
Perkins, W. R. D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Peyton, J. W. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Stevens, G. P. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Wills, G.
Pitman, I. J. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Powell, J. Enoch Stoddart-Scott, Col, M. Wood, Hon. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Storey, S. York, C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Profumo, J. D. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Raikes, Sir Victor Studholme, H. G. Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and
Rayner, Brig. R. Summers, G. S Mr. Drewe.
Adams, Richard Coldrick, W. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Albu, A. H. Collick, P. H. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Cove, W. G. Grey, C. F.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Crosland, C. A. R. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Crossman, R. H. S. Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Awbery, S. S. Cullen, Mrs. A. Grimond, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hale, Leslie
Baird, J. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Balfour, A. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hamilton, W. W.
Bartley, P. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hannan, W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hargreaves, A.
Bence, C. R. de Freitas, Geoffrey Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Deer, G. Hastings, S.
Benson, G. Delargy, H. J. Hayman, F. H.
Beswick, F. Dodds, N. N. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Donnelly, D. L. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Bing, G. H. C. Driberg, T. E. N. Herbison, Miss M.
Blackburn, F. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Hewitson, Capt. M.
Blenkinsop, A. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hobson, C. R.
Blyton, W. R. Edelman, M. Holman, P.
Boardman, H. Edwards, John (Brighouse) Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Holt, A. F.
Bowden, H. W. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Houghton, Douglas
Bowen, E. R. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hoy, J. H.
Bowles, F. G. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Brockway, A. F. Fernyhough, E. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Fienburgh, W. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Finch, H. J. Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Follick, M. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Burke, W. A. Foot, M. M Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Burton, Miss F. E. Forman, J. C. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Janner, B.
Callaghan, L. J. Freeman, John (Watford) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Carmichael, J. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Jeger, George (Goole)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Gibson, C. W. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Champion, A. J. Glanville, James Johnson, James (Rugby)
Chapman, W. D. Gooch, E. G. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Chetwynd, G. R. Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Clunie, J. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Oswald, T. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Padley, W. E. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Keenan, W. Paget, R. T. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Stross, Dr. Barnett
King, Dr. H. M. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Summerskill, Rl. Hon. E.
Kinley, J. Palmer, A. M. F. Swingler, S. T.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Panned, Charles Sylvester, G. O.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pargiter, G. A Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Parker, J. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Lewis, Arthur Paton, J. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Lindgren, G. S. Pearson, A. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Peart, T. F. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Logan, D. G. Plummer, Sir Leslie Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
MacColl, J. E. Poole, C. C. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
McGhee, H. G. Popplewell, E. Thornton, E.
McGovern, J. Porter, G. Timmons, J.
McInnes, J. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughlon) Tomney, F.
McKay, John (Wallsend) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Turner-Samuels, M.
McLeavy, F. Proctor, W. T. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Pryde, D. J. Usborne, H. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Pursey, Comdr. H. Viant, S. P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Rankin, John Wallace, H. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Reeves, J. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Weitzman, D.
Mann, Mrs. Jean Reid, William (Camlachie) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Manuel, A. C. Rhodes, H. West, D. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Roy Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wheeldon, W. E.
Mayhew, C. P. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Mellish, R. J. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Messer, F. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mikardo, Ian Ross, William Wigg, George
Mitchison, G. R. Royle, C. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Monslow, W. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wilkins, W A.
Moody, A. S. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Willey, F. T.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Short, E. W. Williams, David (Neath)
Morley, R. Shurmer, P. L. E. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Mort, D. L. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Moyle, A. Skeffington, A. M. Wilson, Rt. Harold (Huylon)
Mulley, F. W. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Murray, J. D. Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Nally, W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Wyatt, W. L.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Snow, J. W. Yales, V. F.
O'Brien, T. Sorensen, R. W. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Oldfield, W. H. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Oliver, G. H. Sparks, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Orbach, M. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Mr. Arthur Allen and
Mr. John Taylor.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [24th November] to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings to a conclusion.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 275.

Division No. 160.] AYES [6.5 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Allan, R. A. (Paddkigton, S.) Bennett, William (Woodside) Campbell, Sir David
Alport, C. J. M. Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth) Carr, Robert
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Birch, Nigel Cary, Sir Robert
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Bishop, F. P. Channon, H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Black, C. W. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Arbuthnot, John Boothby, R. J. G. Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Bossom, A. C. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Bowen, E. R. Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Cole, Norman
Baker, P. A. D. Boyle, Sir Edward Colegate, W. A.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Braine, B. R. Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Baldw n, A. E. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Banks, Col. C. Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr G. (Bristol, N.W.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Barber, Anthony Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Cranborne, Viscount
Barlow, Sir John Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Baxter, A. B. Brooman-White, R. C. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Beach, Maj, Hicks Browne, Jack (Govan) Crouch, R. F.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Bullard, D. G. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Cuthbert, W. N.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Burden, F. F. A. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
De la Bare, Sir Rupert Kaberry, D. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Deedes, W. F. Keeling, Sir Edward Profumo, J. D.
Digby, S. Wingfield Kerr, H. W. Raikes, Sir Victor
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lambert, Hon. G. Rayner, Brig. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lambton, Viscount Redmayne, M.
Dormer, P. W. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Doughty, C. J. A. Langford-Holt, J. A. Remnant, Hon. P.
Drayson, G. B. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Renton, D. L. M.
Drewe, C. Leather, E. H. C. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Robson-Brown, W.
Duthie, W. S. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Lindsay, Martin Roper, Sir Harold
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Linstead, H. N. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Erroll, F. J. Llewellyn, D. T. Russell, R. S.
Fell, A. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Finlay, Graeme Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fisher, Nigel Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Longden, Gilbert Schofied, Lt.-Col. W.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia Low, A. R. W. Scott, R. Donald
Fort, R. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Foster, John Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Shepherd, William
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell McAdden, S. J. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) McCallum, Major D. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Snadden, W. McN.
Gammans, L. D Macdonald, Sir Peter Soames, Capt. C.
Gamer-Evans, E. H. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Spearman, A. C. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd McKibbin, A. J. Speir, R. M.
Glyn, Sir Ralph Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Godber, J. B. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maclean, Fitzroy Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Gough, C. F. H. Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Stevens, G. P.
Gower, H. R. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Grimiton, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Storey, S.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Harden, J. R. E. Markham, Major S. F. Studholme, H. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. Marlowe, A. A. H. Summers, G. S.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Marples, A. E. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Harris, Reader (Heston) Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Maude, Angus Teeling, W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maudling, R. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Harvie-Walt, Sir George Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hay, John Medlicott, Brig. F. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Heald, Sir Lionel Mellor, Sir John Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Heath, Edward Molson, A. H. E. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Higgs, J. M. C. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Tilney, John
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Touche Sir Gordon
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Molt-Radclyffe, C. E. Turner, H. F. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nabarro, G. D. N. Turton, R. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey Nicholls, Harmar Tweedsmuir, Lady
Holland-Martin, C. J. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Vane, W. M. F.
Hollis, M. C. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich) Nield, Basil (Chester) Vosper, D.F.
Hope, Lord John Noble, Cmdr. A H. P. Wakened, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Nugent, G. R. H. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Horobin, I. M. Nutting, Anthony Walker-Smith, D. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Oakshott, H. D. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Odey, G. W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Watkinson, H. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wellwood, W.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Hurd, A. R. Osborne, C. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Partridge, E. Williams, Sr Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Williams R Dudley (Exeter)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Perkins, W. R. D. Wills, G.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Peyton, J. W. W. Wood, Hon. R.
Jennings, R. Pickthorn, K. W. M. York C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Pitman, I. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Powell, J. Enoch Mr. Herbert Butcher and
Mr. Richard Thompson.
Adams, Richard Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Albu, A. H. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Mort, D. L.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moyle, A.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Grey, C. F. Mulley, F. W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Murray, J. D.
Awbery, S. S. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llannelly) Nally, W.
Bacon, Miss Alice Griffiths, WiIIiam (Exchange) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Baird, J. Grimond, J. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Balfour, A. Hale, Leslie O'Brien, T.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oldfield, W. H.
Bartley, P. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Oliver, G. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hamilton, W. W Orbach, M.
Bence, C. R. Hannan, W. Oswald, T.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Hargreaves, A. Padley, W. E.
Benson, G. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Beswick, F. Hastings, S. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bevan Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hayman, F. H. Palmer, A. M. F.
Bing, G. H. C. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Pannell, Charles
Blackburn, F. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Pargiter, G. A.
Blenkinsop, A. Herbison, Mill M. Parker, J.
Blyton, W. R. Hewitson, Capt. M Paton, J.
Boardman, H. Hobson, C. R. Pearson, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Holman, P. Peart, T. F.
Bowden, H. W. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bewles, F. G. Holt, A. F. Poole, C. C.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Houghton, Douglas Popplewell, E.
Brookway, A. F. Hoy, J. H. Porter, G.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hudson, James (Ealing, W.) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Proctor, W. T.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pryde, D. J.
Burke, W. A. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pursey, Cmdr. H
Burton, Miss F. E. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rankin, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Reeves, J.
Callaghan, L. J. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Carmichael, J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Reid, William (Camlachie)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Janner, B. Rhodes, H.
Champion, A. J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Richards, R.
Chapman, W. D. Jeger, George (Goole) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Chetwynd, G. R Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Clunie, J. Johnson, James (Rugby) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Coldrick, W. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Collick, P. H. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Cove, W. G. Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Royle, C.
Crosland, C. A. R. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Crossman, R. H. S. Keenan, W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Short, E. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. King, Dr. H. M. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Kinley, J. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lee, miss Jennie (Cannock) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Skaffington, A. M.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lewis, Arthur Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Deer, G. Lindgren, G. S. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Delargy, H. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Dodds, N. N. Logan, D. G. Snow, J. W.
Donnelly, D. L. MacColl, J. E. Sorensen, R. W.
Driberg, T. E. N. McGhee, H. G. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) McGovern, J. Sparks, J. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McInnes, J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Edelman, M. McKay, John (Wallsend) Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Edwards. John (Brighouse) McLeavy, F. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mac Pherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Evans, Edward (Lewestoft) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Swingler, S. T.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Sylvester, G. O.
Fernyhough, E. Mann, Mrs. Jean Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fienburgh, W. Manuel, A. C. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Finch, H. J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mason, Roy Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Follick, M. Mayhew, C. P. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Foot, M. M. Mellish, R. J. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Forman, J. C. Messer, F. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mikardo, Ian Thornton E
Freeman, John (Watford) Mitchison, G. R. Timmons, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Monslow, W. Tomney, F.
Gibson, C. W. Moody, A. S. Turner-Samuels, M.
Glanville, James Morgan, Dr. H. B. W Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Gooch, E. G. Morley, R. Usborne, H. C.
Viant, S. P. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Wallace, H. W. Wigg, George Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Weitzman, D. Wilkins, W. A. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Willey, F. T. Wyatt, W. L.
West, D. G. Williams, David (Neath) Yates, V. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Wheeldon, W. E. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) Mr. Arthur Allen and
Mr. John Taylor.

2. If, on the expiration of four hours from the time when the Order of the day for the consideration of those amendments is read, or at half-past Ten o'clock, whichever is the later, those proceedings have not been completed, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to, and (if it has not been already disposed of) the amendment to the Bill (Schedule 4, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23) standing on the notice paper in the name of Mr. Lennox-Boyd, be agreed to:


That the Order [24th November] be supplemented as follows:

1. The proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

Provided that if at this day's sitting the said proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) the time at which Mr. Speaker is to put that question shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the Motion for the Adjournment.