HC Deb 13 March 1961 vol 636 cc1111-50
Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out, "and be deemed to have had effect".

It is a very great pity that because we are galloping through the Bill at such a speed we should be unable to discuss a number of these Amendments, both important and not so important.

The Amendment has been tabled so that we may hear from the Government why the words to which I refer are in the Schedule. The Schedule is an example of legislation by reference at its worst. It refers to no fewer than five Acts by name in paragraph 1 (2), and, of course, quite a number which are included under the title "National Insurance Acts" and are referred to in the principal Act of 1957. Therefore, it is important that we should know exactly what it is the Government mean. Paragraph 1 (1) reads: Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall, to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act;"— that is, the Act of 1957— and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Acts',"— according to the 1957 Act, that means any of the National Insurance Acts between 1946 and 1956— shall have effect, and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly. I do not know why the words: … and be deemed to have had effect … are needed, because the words … be deemed as from the appropriate date … have to be interpreted in the light of paragraph 1 (6), which reads: … 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act. and, in relation to each of the other Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, means the date of the passing of each such Act respectively. One assumes that when one says, as is said in paragraph 1 (1): … be deemed as from the appropriate date … that that reference is, in each case, to the date at which the Act came into operation. That being so, I want to know why we need the words … and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly, If those words were omitted, paragraph I (1) would simply read: Each of the Acts mentioned … etc. … shall … be deemed as from the appropriate dale to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act; and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Act', shall have effect accordingly. That would mean that this would go into operation as from the date when the principal Act, and the Acts referred to in that Act, came into operation. That may not sound clear, but it seems to me to be clear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

May I ask my hon. Friend for an explanation? He used the word "etc." That can be a very big word. Will he say whether it is in the original Act, or whether it was his interpolation?

Mr. Willis

I do not think I used that word. It is not one that I am in the habit of using, but if I did it means all those Acts to which this paragraph refers. I do not know how many it actually refers to, but no fewer than five are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and they also include all the Acts put together under the title "National Insurance Acts"—all those passed between 1946 and 1956.

The only point I make is that if the words … and be deemed to have had effect … were left out, sub-paragraph (6) would still mean that each of the Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) would come into operation as from the date that this Bill itself came into operation. The Acts included within the title, "National Insurance Acts", would operate as from the date laid down in the 1957 Act.

In view of that, before we commence to discuss this important matter, we should have an explanation from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Arthur Tiley (Bradford, West)

Very clear.

Mr. Willis

I am glad to have had that tribute. I hope that it will be made even more clear after an explanation from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). Having had explanations from both sides of the Committee, we shall be able to get our teeth into the matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he has explained a very difficult matter. He addressed himself to the last words of the subsection, which are: … and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly. He addressed himself to what those words meant.

Anyone administering this subsection will first have to arrive at what it actually means and what it is deemed to mean, and I am sure that the Minister will be the first to appreciate the impropriety of legislation by reference, such as this. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the subsection refers to five or six Statutes which are set out, or adumbrated, in subsection (2). It is perfectly clear that anyone trying to arrive at a meaning of a Clause, at either what it actually means or what it is deemed to mean, will need to resort to a law library containing the five or six Statutes. That much is perfectly clear, and I am sure that it is clear to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to realise that this is a most objectionable example of legislation by reference.

What are the objections to legislation by reference? I shall indicate briefly what they are. When a subsection refers to a number of Statutes, in this case, five or six, it involves the person seeking to construe the subsection in having recourse to a law library containing all those Statutes. Alternatively, if he does not have access to such a law library, what is he to do to find out what the subsection means, or what it is deemed to mean?

He will have to divest himself of his responsibility. He will not go into a law library, but he will take proceedings before the law courts and try to place the responsibility for the construction of the subsection off his shoulders and on to the shoulders of one of the learned judges of the law courts. That will involve proceedings of one kind or another, which will obviously put the parties concerned to considerable expense. It may be that the parties concerned are poor people who not only cannot afford these increased charges but who cannot afford the law costs which are incidental to their attempts to find out what paragraph means, or what it is deemed to mean.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Will my hon. and learned Friend explain the procedure to be adopted in the case of an appeal in Scotland?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought that it was obvious to everybody what the procedure would be. I am sure that it must be obvious to the Minister. If not, all that he has to do is to call in the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to ask them what will be the nature of it. Or he can call in the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland or all four Law Officers to determine what form the proceedings should take.

To put it in its simplest form for the benefit of my hon. Friend who asked this question, it will probably take the form of Chancery proceedings; a construction summons designed to construe the particular paragraph, not according to the views of the litigants in the particular litigation, but according to the views of the learned judge. Counsel on both sides will be briefed, having first been approached by solicitors in the ordinary course of business. If they are properly briefed they will be paid fees, and ultimately, perhaps, after some days spent discussing the pros and cons of this difficult paragraph and after referring to authorities ancient and modern, the learned judge will come to some conclusion and he will then have to consider the question of costs.

Shall he award costs to the plaintiff in the construction summons—[HON. MEMBERS "Yes."]—or shall he award costs to the other side? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be a private person who has had to initiate these proceedings—and costs may be given against him. If he is a poor person and is unable to pay the costs, he may be thrown into bankruptcy. Alternatively, the costs may be given against the local authority. In that case, the local authority may have to raise the rates. [Laughter.] The money must be found from somewhere.

The courts of justice do not operate for nothing. Not only will the relevant fees on the summons, on the writ, on the defence, and on the various documents have to be paid, but counsels' fees and the fees of solicitors——

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a further point of elucidation——

Mr. Hector Hughes

Just a moment until I come to a full stop. That is one of the difficulties which will arise under this difficult paragraph. It will arise from the fact that the unfortunate administrators of the paragraph—be they public officials, local authorities, or private individuals—will be confronted with that type of difficulty.

As I have said, they will have to refer to law books. The case may be decided by the judge of first instance. It is not the type of case in which it would be fair to involve a jury. It is the type of case which, having been decided by the judge of first instance, may go to the court of appeal. It is an extremely difficult matter. These construction summons are very difficult, and, having gone to the court of appeal, and the court of appeal having either affirmed the trial judge or reversed him, and having considered the question of costs, it may then go from the court of appeal to a higher judicial tribunal.

Ultimately it may come to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and we all know how difficult a whole series of proceedings such as this would be. In that way great injustice may be done, not only to the private persons involved, but also the local authorities, to the public authorities, to the ratepayers and to a whole series of people and bodies. I ask the Minister to take account of these considerations and realise that not only may he be inflicting an increase in Health charges on unfortunate, poor people who are unable to pay them, but he may be imposing on private citizens, local authorities and public authorities the obligation to pay a great sum of money for a bill, perhaps several bills. of costs in the civil courts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman now come to a full stop, or only to a semicolon? Has he borne in mind the fact that legal aid may be applied for both in Scotland and in England? As the system of legal aid in Scotland is slightly different from the legal aid scheme in England, can he explain the grievances which would arise in Scotland as against those in England?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I am afraid that I should he out of order were I to discuss those differences. It would be in order to discuss the differences between the application of this Bill—or of the Act which eventually, unfortunately, it may become—to Scotland and to England, respectively. But my hon. Friend is tempting me to do something which would he out of order in asking me to discuss the legal aid schemes. I do not think they are within the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. Barber

The Committee will have appreciated that the point raised by this Amendment is fairly narrow, but it has implications of a wider variety than might be appreciated at first sight by those considering the Amendment in all its simplicity.

I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for explaining his Amendment with such lucidity that now nobody can be in doubt about what he had in mind when he moved it. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for his classical exposition of the implications of legislation by reference.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that the main operative words of retrospection in this sub-paragraph of the Second Schedule appear in the third and fourth lines, beginning with the words: … as from the appropriate date to have been … From that he will appreciate that there is an element of retrospection, but, lest anybody should be in any doubt about it, I must say that the Schedule does not impose any retrospective liability.

Having explained the significance of the words in the third and fourth lines, to which no Amendment is proposed, I must point out that the latter part of this sub-paragraph is only a consequential provision, yet it is in the latter part the hon. Gentleman proposes to make an Amendment. As I am sure the hon. And learned Member for Aberdeen, North will agree, an elementary principle of drafting is that consequential provisions must be consistent with the main operative provision on which they are dependent. For those reasons, obviously, it would be most inappropriate to delete these words which are consistent with the earlier words accepted by the hon. Gentleman who proposes that we should delete the later words.

Mr. Willis

I am not very satisfied with that. What difference would it make if these words were left out? The hon. Gentleman should tell us that. We could then judge whether it is better to leave them in or to take them out. We cannot make a judgment of that character unless we know what difference it would make. I have suggested that to leave them out would not make any difference at all. In view of sub-paragraph (6), "deemed to have had effect" means from "the appropriate date" to have been included in the appropriate Act. Will the hon. Gentleman explain as lucidly as I managed to explain the meaning of my Amendment and what difference it would make if those words were left out?

Mr. Hector Hughes

Before the Economic Secretary replies, may I call his attention to the fact that he could accept an Amendment leaving in the paragraph the word "accordingly" so that the paragraph would read: shall have effect accordingly", leaving out the very difficult words: and be deemed to have had effect".

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. We are not discussing an Amendment dealing with the word "accordingly", but an Amendment dealing with the words, "and be deemed to have had effect."

Mr. Barber

If it is accepted that the earlier words in lines 6 and 7 should be included in this paragraph, for consistency's sake alone it is obviously right that these later words should also be included. I would not say for a moment, without further consideration, that the effect of this sub-paragraph would be modified if these words were deleted, but what I say without any hesitation whatever is that the subparagraph with these words in is properly drafted. If these words were out it would be badly drafted and might conceivably give rise to some doubt. Therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross

I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised this point. I have been looking at the wording of the paragraph and I think that there is far more in this than we have heard from the Economic Secretary. He said that the Amendment was on a very narrow point, but had very wide implications. He took great care not to tell us what they were.

If the Economic Secretary had known the efforts and simple ingenuous nature of Scottish hon. Members, he would have looked a second time at any Amendment we put down because we like to get a Minister to explain what he knows about a Bill. What we want to know is exactly what are the implications of these words. When we see in a Bill that something which is the result of what we are doing now is "deemed to have had effect", not now but over some years, we want to know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman said that no one was being placed in retrospective liability. Is there being justified, or given statutory right, a liability which hitherto has been exacted with a certain measure of doubtful legality?

Mr. Barber indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I want to know why we have this paragraph at all. As I understand, it relates to Section 1 (1) of the principal Act. Section 1 (1) of that Act lays down those who are liable to pay National Health Service contributions. I gather that there have been changes in certain laws since then and, obviously, they have not hitherto been tied in to Section 1 of the principal Act.

Now, the Government, after the changes that have taken place since 1956, are tying the thing together, and are telling us not only that the effect will be as from now, but as from an "appropriate date and that it will be deemed always to have had that effect. The hon. Gentleman seemed to chide my hon. Friend for not having changed or sought to amend the words "appropriate date".

Mr. Barber indicated dissent.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross

If the hon. Gentleman looks further down the Notice Paper, he will see an Amendment seeking to leave out the reference to the appropriate date altogether, and I had in mind exactly the same point.

I want the hon. Gentleman to come clean as to what the Government have actually discovered so that they found it convenient to have this Schedule at all. We did not have it in the last Contributions Act of 1958. Evidently, this involves quite a number of Acts that have been passed, including the National Insurance Act, 1957, the certain sections of the No. 2 Act of 1957, the Family Allowances (National Insurance) Act, 1959, the National Insurance Act, 1959, and the National Insurance Act, 1960, all of which have made changes in relation to the definition of persons who are liable in respect of National Health Service contributions.

As I read it, that has not been tied up with the original National Health Service Contributions Act, so that it may well be that there is a certain measure of legal doubt whether the Government have been right in respect of certain of the National Health Service contributions which they have been levying, and so they are seeking in this Schedule to make absolutely sure that they have been covered. That is why they say that it shall be deemed, as from the "appropriate date", to have been included in those Acts, and, therefore, the effect would be that they would be deemed to have had effect from the time of the passing of those Acts. That is what we understand from sub-paragraph (6) and the definition of the "appropriate date".

I think that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that although this is a narrow point, it has wide implications. It is due to the Committee that he should tell us just what those implications are before we can decide whether we should clear up the conscience of the Government by allowing them to have this paragraph as it is drafted.

Mr. Weitzman

My point is merely a drafting point on the same lines as that raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I know that the Economic Secretary is a lawyer, and that, therefore, he will be able to construe this, but I cannot find any meaning to be attached to the words— and be deemed to have had effect. If the words were simply"— shall have effect accordingly the meaning would be absolutely clear, but what is the reason for the addition of the words— and be deemed to have had effect I do not know. I see no need for them at all, particularly, as has rightly been pointed out, we have in the third line of the first sub-paragraph of the Schedule the words— be deemed as from the appropriate date. What does that mean? Quite frankly, as a lawyer, I would certainly give the opinion that it has no effect at all, and that it means nothing. The Economic Secretary as a lawyer, knows perfectly well that the effect of putting in words in this way is to throw doubt on the whole thing and ensure litigation being raised on the matter.

Mr. Barber

The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has raised a point of some importance in referring to the fact that on occasions by inserting words which in fact are meaningless we can raise doubts if the court has to construe the words in question. He will appreciate, however, that it is equally true to say that doubt can be cast on the construction, implication or application of any part of an Act of Parliament if words are left out which might well, reasonably and consistently with other words, have been put in. This is the point so far as these words are concerned. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me, in effect, what purpose was served by these words in line 10. The fact is that, without them, the paragraph might create a doubt in the mind of a court where, for all practical purposes, no doubt exists.

Since I have been asked about it, perhaps I can refer in a little more detail to subsection (1) of Section 1 of the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, where it is stated: As from the appointed day, every person who, either as an insured person or as an employer, pays, or is liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956 … shall be liable, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to pay contributions … known … as national health service contributions. As the law stands, nobody doubts at all that under that subsection contributors to National Insurance are liable to pay National Health Service contributions, notwithstanding the fact that the rates of National Insurance contributions are no longer those which were fixed in the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956, which are referred to in that subsection of the National Health Contributions Act, 1957. But the Amendment by the present Bill of that subsection of the 1957 Act which is referred to in the Bill as the principal Act might be held to imply that the rates of the National Insurance contribution as fixed from time to time by the successive National Insurance Acts are also relevant to the question of the liability to pay National Health Service contributions.

Therefore, if the amendment contained in the Schedule—and I refer not to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but to the amendment made by the Schedule itself—were not retrospective in this sense the Schedule might conceivably raise a doubt as to whether a contributor to National Insurance is at present liable to pay National Health Service contributions at all, since the rates in force are no longer the rates fixed by the Acts, 1946 to 1956.

I should like to make it absolutely clear, as I did earlier, that by doing this we are, in fact, making clear for the future a position which might be unclear if the Bill became an Act without those words, but I cannot stress too strongly that the Schedule does not impose any liability retrospectively. Perhaps I can put it in this way, so that the Committee may be in no doubt as to the meaning of the words. There are no persons who, at any time since the passing of the 1957 Act, have not been liable to pay National Health Service contribution who are, by virtue of this Schedule, to be deemed to be liable to pay them and who, accordingly, might now be compelled to pay them in arrear. Therefore, there is no retrospective liability, but there might be some misunderstanding in the future if these words were not included.

There is one further point. When I have been talking about these words and the retrospective element in paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule, I have been referring not only to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes should be left out, but also to the earlier words in line 6. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North realises that these two sets of words hang together; that the one is, as it were, consequential on the other. If I confine myself for a moment to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out in the last line of the subparagraph, I will say quite frankly, as I indicated earlier, that if the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment were left out it is very unlikely that the court would put a different construction on this sub-paragraph, but, for the reasons I gave earlier in respect to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North it would be bad drafting whereas, at the moment, the sub-paragraph is properly drafted.

Mr. Weitzman

I can understand the Economic Secretary's explanation of the meaning of paragraph 1 (1) of the Second Schedule, but this Amendment deals only with the words and be deemed to have had effect". The Economic Secretary says that we should leave these words in the Schedule because the position will be clearer as a result, but the point which is being pressed on him is that, far from making it clearer, the words are unnecessary, mean nothing and only add to the mystery of the matter. They may give rise to litigation, as the Economic Secretary agreed may happen if words in an Act of Parliament mean nothing.

This matter can be tested simply. He will be the first to agree that if words are unnecessary they should be removed. I hope that he will bear with me while I look at the paragraph and demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the words are quite unnecessary. The paragraph begins Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall … be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) … We therefore have it clearly laid down that each of those Acts is to be deemed from the appropriate date to be included among the Acts mentioned in that subsection and shall have effect … accordingly". The hon. Member will see that I have omitted the words and be deemed to have had effect". Without the words, we know what the paragraph means, and the language could not be simpler. The words and be deemed to have had effect are otiose and unnecessary and ought to be removed.

Mr. Willis

Having listened twice to the Economic Secretary I have come firmly to the conclusion that these words are not necessary and that what I tentatively suggested in the first place is correct. I thought that when the hon. Member had explained the matter we should be able to get our teeth into it. So we can, with this result: in the first place, he said that the words had very wide implications, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) immediately asked what they were, we discovered that there are no wide implications at all.

Mr. Barber

The wide implications which were adumbrated by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).

Mr. Willis

That is not true. It is only a get-out.

Mr. Ross

That is what the Economic Secretary would like us to think.

Mr. Willis

The Economic Secretary said that the words had wide implications, but we have since learned that they have not. After my hon. Friend asked him what the wide implications were, he "came clean" and we had an acceptance by him that the words could be omitted without altering the meaning of the paragraph. That is why we put down the Amendment—to find out whether the words had any meaning and whether they need be in the Clause.

It is about time that the House revolted against the practice of Parliamentary draftsmen of cluttering up legislation with all sorts of unnecessary words. We have a number of Amendments down, and had they been accepted they would have reduced the length of the Schedule considerably, as would this Amendment. Why should people whose job it is to interpret Acts of Parliament be compelled to spend unnecessary time and labour in going over Clauses and Schedules to find out what they mean when the Clauses and Schedules would have had no different meaning if half the words had been left out?

10.30 p.m.

It is about time that the House of Commons protested against this kind of thing. We try to the best of our ability to do so in the Scottish Standing Committee, but this Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House and we thought that we might apply the same principles to the Schedule and try to reduce its length. The result might have been a more intelligible Schedule. To clutter it up with words such as these only adds confusion to all concerned and adds to the expense involved in consulting lawyers as to the meaning. We should divide on this Amendment as a protest against the clumsy manner in which the Schedule has been drafted and against the use of all sorts of unnecessary words to say something that could have been said quite simply.

Mr. Hector Hughes

I addressed the Chair at length upon the aspect that this

Division No. 104.] AYES [10.33 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Cunningham, Knox Harvie Anderson, Miss
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Curran, Charles Hastings, Stephen
Allason, James Dalkeith, Earl of Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Arbuthnot, John Dance, James Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Atkins, Humphrey d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hendry, Forbes
Barber, Anthony Deedes, W. F. Hicks Beach, Major W.
Barter, John de Ferranti, Basil Hiley, Joseph
Batsford, Brian Digby, Simon Wingfield Hill, Dr. R. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Berkeley, Humphry du Cann, Edward Hirst, Geoffrey
Bidgood, John C. Eden, John Hobson, John
Bingham, R. M. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Holland, Philip
Bishop, F. P. Emery, Peter Hollingworth, John
Black, Sir Cyril Farey-Jones, F. W. Hornby, R. P.
Bossom, Clive Farr, John Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Bourne-Arton, A, Fell, Anthony Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Box, Donald Fisher, Nigel Hughes-Young, Michael
Boyle, Sir Edward Forrest, George Hurd, Sir Anthony
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Foster, John Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Iremonger, T. L.
Burden, R. A. Freeth, Denzil Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Gammans, Lady Jackson, John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Gardner, Edward Jennings, J. C.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Gibson-Watt, David Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Godber, J. B. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Cary, Sir Robert Goodhart, Philip Kaberry, Sir Donald
Chichester-Clark, R. Goodhew, Victor Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Gough, Frederick Kerby, Capt. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Gower, Raymond Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portemth, W.) Grant, Rt. Hon. William Kimball, Marcus
Cleaver, Leonard Green, Alan Kitson, Timothy
Cole, Norman Grimston, Sir Robert Lambton, Viscount
Cooper, A. E. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Langford-Holt, J.
Corfield, F. V. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Leavey, J. A.
Costain, A. P. Harris, Reader (Heston) Leburn, Gilmour
Coulson, J. M. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Craddock, Sir Beresford Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

is legislation by reference, but another aspect which has not yet been expressed is that it is retrospective legislation, because the words sought to be left out are and be deemed to have had effect"— that is to say, deemed in the past to have had an effect which, in the past, they have not had. This is retrospective. It will have an adverse effect upon the people concerned by the construction of the earlier Acts. Therefore, not only is the wording objectionable on the ground that this is legislation by reference, but it is also objectionable on the still more serious ground that it is retrospective legislation.

Reference has been made to the fact that the Minister is a member of the Bar. He will, no doubt, take these aspects into account, and particularly the second one that this is retrospective legislation.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 225,

Lilley, F. J. P. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Lindsay, Martin Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Speir, Rupert
Linstead, Sir Hugh Osborn, John (Hallam) Stanley, Hon. Richard
Litchfield, Capt. John Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Stevens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Page, John (Harrow, West) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Longden, Gilbert Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Loveys, Walter H. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Studhotme, Sir Henry
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Peel, John Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Percival, Ian Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
McLaren, Martin Pilkington, Sir Richard Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Pitman, I. J. Thomas Leslie (Canterbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Pitt, Miss Edith Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayr) Pott, Percivall Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Price, David (Eastleigh) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
McMaster, Stanley R. Prior, J. M. L. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Maddan, Martin Proudfoot, Wilfred Turner, Colin
Maginnis, John E. Quennell, Miss J. M. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Ramsden, James Vane, W. M. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Marten, Neil Rees, Hugh Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Rees-Davies, W. R. Ward, Dame Irene
Mawby, Ray Renton, David Watts, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Roots, William Wells, John (Maidstone)
Maydor., Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton Russell, Ronald Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Montgomery, Fergus Seymour, Leslie Wise, A. R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Sharpies, Richard Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Morgan, William Shaw, M. Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Nabarro, Gerald Shepherd, William Woodhouse, C. M.
Heave, Airey Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Woodnutt, Mark
Noble, Michael Skeet, T. H. H. Worsley, Marcus
Nugent, Sir Richard Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.
Abse, Leo Fletcher, Eric Loughlin, Charles
Albu, Austen Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacColl, James
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Forman, J. C. McKay, John (Wallsend)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mackie, John
Awbery, Stan Galpern, Sir Myer MacMillan, Malcom (Western Isles)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmtrthn) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Heaney, Alan Ginsburg, David Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Benson, Sir George Gourlay, Harry Manuel, A. C.
Blackburn, F. Greenwood, Anthony Mason, Roy
Blyton, William Grey, Charles Mellish, R. J.
Boardman, H. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Millan, Bruce
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Milne, Edward J.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Grimond, J. Mitchison, G. R.
Bowles, Frank Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coins Valley) Winslow, Walter
Boyden, James Hamilton, William (West Fife) Moody, A. B.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hannan, William Morris, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hart, Mrs. Judith Moyle, Arthur
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hayman, F. H. Mulley, Frederick
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Healey, Denis Neal, Harold
Chapman, Donald Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Cliffs, Michael Herbison, Miss Margaret Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Collick, Percy Hewitson, Capt. M. Oliver, G. H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hilton, A. V. Oswald, Thomas
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Holman, Percy Owen, Will
Cronin, John Holt, Arthur Padley, W. E.
Crosland, Anthony Houghton, Douglas Paget, R. T.
Crossman, R. H. S. Hoy, James H. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Davies. Ifor (Gower) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Peart, Frederick
Doer, George Janner, Sir Barnett Pentland, Norman
Delargy, Hugh Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Dempsey, dames Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Probert, Arthur
Dodds, Norman Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Proctor, W. T.
Driberg, Tom Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefleld) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Randall, Harry
Edelman, Maurice Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Rankin, John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Kelley, Richard Redhead, E. C.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kenyon, Clifford Reid, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) King, Dr. Horace Reynolds, G. W.
Evans, Albert Ledger, Ron Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Finch, Harold Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Fitch, Alan Logan, David Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Ross, William Sylvester, George White, Mrs. Eirene
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilkins, W. A.
Smith, Eills (Stoke, S.) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Snow, Julian Thornton, Ernest Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Sorensen, R. W. Thorpe, Jeremy Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Timmons, John Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie Tomney, Frank Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Ly[...]n Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Stones, William Wainwright, Edwin Woof, Robert
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Watkins, Tudor Yates, Victor (Ladywo[...]d)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Weitzman, David Zilliacus, K.
Swain, Thomas Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Swingler, Stephen Wells, William (Walsall, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Short and Mr. Lawson.
Mr. Ross

I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6).

I move this Amendment because I should like to give the Economic Secretary an opportunity of giving one of his lucid explanations of what this subparagraph means. This covers the point which he said was made in relation to the words "the appropriate date." Perhaps he will tell us why he has decided on these "appropriate dates." Could he spend a little time justifying this proliferation of qualitative words—"each," "such" and "respectively"? As far as we can see, they do not mean a thing and are quite unnecessary.

We notice that the "appropriate date" is to be a date very considerably in the past in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, for sub-paragraph (6) says: … 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act,"— that is, the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, which was given the Royal Assent on 17th July, 1957—some time before the National Insurance Act. Sub-paragraph (6) goes on: and, in relation to each of the other Acts … each such Act respectively. I feel that this means that we are getting retrospective conditions of some kind. I am still not clear about the implications. If we do not get an answer now, we shall seek to get it during debate on the Schedule as a whole.

Mr. Barber

As the hon. Member will realise, the purpose of sub-paragraph (6) is to explain and define the meaning of the words "appropriate date" referred to in sub-paragraph (1). Without subparagraph (6) there might be some doubt as to what the "appropriate date" was in each case. I assume that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that there would be some doubt.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross

Otherwise no appropriate date would be mentioned at all.

Mr. Barber

No. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is necessary to specify an appropriate date. The appropriate date is in every case the date of the passing of the Bill, except in the case of the National Insurance Act, 1957. In relation to that Act it means the date of the passing of the principal Act, which is the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957. The reason for that is, of course, that the National Insurance Act, 1957, was, as he will remember, passed before the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first person to agree that it would not have been desirable to have produced the result that the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, was to be deemed to have had effect from the date it was actually passed. That is the reason why that Act has to be treated differently from the other Acts. That accounts for the length of the sub-paragraph and the words "each such" and "respectively" to which he referred. I think that if it had not been for this differentiation between the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, and the other Acts it might have been possible simply to have incorporated the words in sub-paragraph (1) which would have had the desired effect without having to have a separate sub-paragraph.

As for the effect of this sub-paragraph, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that in dealing at some length on the previous Amendment with the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) I was dealing with the purpose of that sub-paragraph in the knowledge that the "appropriate date" referred to in that subparagraph was the appropriate date as defined in sub-paragraph (6).

I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, because I know there are some important Amendments to be moved in the future. Therefore, I should like only to stress that there might well be difficulties of interpretation if these provisions of paragraph 1 were not included, and I should also like to stress, as I did on the previous occasion, that this Schedule, including paragraph 1 (1), does not impose any liability retrospectively. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will not press his point, so that we can get on to the very important Amendments yet to be considered.

Mr. Ross

We are indebted to the Economic Secretary for the delightful terms in which he has explained so lucidly just exactly what this thing does not mean. Is it not quite fantastic that we have this drafting? We have got something which is innocent of purpose when what is essential to the Government could have been so clearly and simply put. The appropriate date is mentioned in the first sub-paragraph and then we have five more sub-paragraphs to read before we discover what "appropriate date" means. Then we have to get an explanation from the Economic Secretary.

I doubt very much whether there are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side who really know yet what it means and fewer still who know why it is here at all. The more the hon. Gentleman proclaims the innocence of the purpose, because there is no retrospective liability, he says, the more we have to point out that what we have is retrospective legislation and so he is putting something right somewhere. I have more than a feeling that what has thus been covered up is past blunderings in past legislation. We may be able to extract a little information when we discuss the Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

However, as the Guillotine is about to fall once again and as we have other important Amendments to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, to leave out paragraph 2.

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendments in page 4, line 44, leave out from "Act" to "subsection" in line 45, and in page 5, line 5, after "Treasury", insert: and the Secretary of State jointly.

Mr. Willis

Paragraph (2) of the Schedule is that which transfers the responsibility for making regulations in respect of certain contributions from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury. Having studied this very closely, we fail to find any satisfactory reason why these powers to make regulations should be transferred. The power is to be found in Section 3 (7) of the principal Act, which says: The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State may jointly make regulations specifying a class of masters or members of the crews of foreign-going ships (as defined by the regulations) and either—

  1. (a) excepting employers from liability to pay national health service contributions in respect of persons of that class, or
  2. (b) reducing, to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, the rates of national health service contributions payable by employers in respect of persons of that class; and different provision may be made by regulations under this subsection in respect of different classes of persons."
I have read that so that the Smoke Room boys who have come into the Chamber in the last half-hour may have some inkling of what they are doing, as it is obvious that many of them do not.

It is difficult to find any reason why these powers should be transferred to the Treasury. I should have thought that the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State were the best people to judge whether contributions in respect of certain people ought to be reduced. They are able to judge from experience whether there are factors leading to the reduction of the contributions of certain groups of people. They are in a better position to do so than the Treasury is.

I suppose that once again the answer must be that this is a taxing Bill and that all taxing Bills should be the responsibility of the Treasury. That can be the only reason. We in Scotland are very much opposed to powers being taken from the Secretary of State and vested in the Treasury. I remind the Government that the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, which three or four years ago inquired into the devolution of responsibility for Scottish affairs, recommended that wherever possible power should be transferred from United Kingdom Departments to the Secretary of State. The Government are flying in the face of those recommendations.

I am sure that some of my hon. Friends want to say something about the Minister of Health, but I am talking about the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are vigorously opposed to the Treasury taking any powers——

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

The hon. Gentleman said that before.

Mr. Willis

I am saying it again so that hon. Gentlemen might know the strength of feeling amongst Scottish hon. Members on this subject. It is not often that we get an opportunity to express our feelings, and when we do it is only right that we should do it in a manner which might convince hon. Gentlemen of our sincerity. This is not a laughing matter.

Mr. Hall

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Treasury ought to have its powers removed in England as well? If he does, I might support him.

Mr. Willis

That is the purpose of the Amendment. I am delighted that, after having spoken for only four minutes, I have managed to convert one hon. Gentleman opposite. The Amendment seeks to prevent the Treasury from taking power from the Minister of Health, and if the hon. Gentleman supports the Amendment we shall be delighted. We shall welcome him. We shall give him pride of place in the Division Lobby and let him go to the head of the queue. We would like him to convert his hon. Friends to our point of view.

Mr. Hall

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to removing all powers from the Treasury. I would be very much in favour of that.

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman is once again crawling out of this. I am always interested in watching the antics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They march up the hill and then they march down again. When one suggests that they prove the sincerity of the sentiments which they are expressing, they start crawling away. Show your courage by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hall

The hon. Gentleman is inviting the Chairman to show his courage by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Willis

I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to go into the Division Lobby to show his courage.

Might I summarise the reasons why we want paragraph 2 withdrawn? First, we do not think that these functions could be more adequately fulfilled by the Treasury. Therefore, we do not see any reason why they should be transferred from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury. Secondly, we are opposed in principle to the transfer of powers from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will regard the Amendment with favour. I very much doubt that he will. So far he has not looked with favour on anything. We have heard plenty of kind words and expressions of sympathy. We have heard occasional kind words for my hon. Friends for the excellent manner in which they have presented their cases, but we have not had the goods delivered. The hon. Gentleman has not given us a single thing during our discussions on the Bill, and I suggest that this is an opportunity for him to redeem himself and show that he occasionally does more than make pleasant speeches, that he does in fact concede something. I trust that he will give the Amendment favourable consideration.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

I should not like the Committee to think that this is a matter which stirs the feelings only of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. I was glad to see the reaction of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and sorry that he thought it necessary to modify his attitude immediately afterwards. What has depressed and impressed me throughout the proceedings on this Bill is that the Civil War and 300 years of struggle behind us to deal with the taxing powers of the Government and of the Treasury—which the hon. Member for Wycombe still regards as his natural adversary; the fact that the taxpayer is still safeguarded by a period of six years in which to make an appeal; the elaborate machinery and the powers of the courts to see that he is not ill-treated—all that is thrown away in a brusque and rather wanton fashion; and now we are developing a new system of poll tax by stamp.

We have failed to secure from this Government any concession for the widows, apprentices, students, or any other category of people on whom this burden is to be laid, and now they will not even consider a modification of the abrupt rubber stamping of the Treasury. Perhaps it is not without significance—the Ship Money tax has been discussed in this House of Commons before—this little tentative step giving the Treasury to tax directly the crews of foreign going ships. How much further is it to be extended? This will be taken as a precedent, and we shall be asked not to make frivolous objections and delay debates. We shall be accused of trying to spin out the discussions of Measures which, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, are confined to this poll tax, this stamp tax, this new system which is to be protected by none of the safeguards which have been enjoyed by the taxpayer for centuries after the struggles of this House of Commons to defend. That is what I find depressing.

I find it depressing that the bright idea of someone can be put into effect and they cannot be bothered to consult the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The attitude is that it is only a taxing matter; let the Treasury do it. If we allow this little inroad into our ancient rights regarding taxation, I have no doubt that next year we shall be asked to approve provisions for taxation over a wide field to be introduced by regulation by the Treasury without any consultation in Parliament or the imposition of any of the safeguards which we normally have for the process of taxation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will treat this matter more seriously than the Economic Secretary has treated previous Amendments.

Sir E. Boyle

I will certainly endeavour to treat this matter seriously, but when I think of the criticisms of the Bill made by hon. Members opposite, I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is so keen that Scotland should be so closely associated with it.

Mr. Ross

Not Scotland—the Secretary of State.

Sir E. Boyle

I quite understand that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present on a number of occasions at the earlier stages of this Bill. He has the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East more often than I do but I have much enjoyed that experience during these debates.

As I think the Committee will realise, the general purpose of paragraph 2 is to transfer to the Treasury from the Ministry of Health and the Secretary State for Scotland powers to make regulations under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act, which gives power to specify classes of masters or crew members of foreign-going ships and to reduce the employer contributions paid on their behalf. I think I can give the Committee information about what this concession involves.

The reason for the concession which is envisaged in this provision is that employers of masters and crew members of foreign-going ships may be relieved of part of the employer contribution on the grounds that they are obliged to provide and pay for medical treatment for seafarers during periods of incapacity abroad. I think that is generally accepted. In practice, the current employer contribution is 5½d. a week and the employer contribution in respect of this class is 2½d. a week. The point of the paragraph is quite simple. Now that the Treasury is to have general responsibility for the Bill I think it reasonable that power under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act should be transferred to the Treasury as well.

Perhaps it would not be out of order if I were to say a word or two about each of the three Amendments, which clearly are linked. The effect of the first would be to leave with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as at present the power to make regulations for employers of seagoing mariners. If I were to accept the Amendment the power would remain with the Health Ministers as it is now. I am not going to say that this is a matter of absolutely vital importance. All I say is that I think it would be much tidier that a regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should itself lie with the Treasury. All through these proceedings I have never lost sight of the fact that the Treasury takes full responsibility for this Measure. Treasury Ministers will be responsible on the Floor of the House for its working. Treasury Ministers will reply to correspondence arising out of this Bill. I therefore think it much tidier and more satisfactory that the regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should lie with the same Department.

The next Amendment would have the effect that, if the power were transferred to the Treasury, it would be transferred in such a way that neither the Treasury nor the Health Ministers could revoke or amend previous regulations under the similar provisions of the 1957 and 1958 Acts. That would not seem at all satisfactory, because this power to revoke or amend is necessary if new reduced rates at any time in future are to be established. Without the words it proposes to leave out, it would not be possible to increase the employer contribution for this group of employers. We should be tying our hands for the future in a very undesirable way if we were to accept that Amendment. I hope that whatever the hon. Member decides to do on other Amendments he will not press that one.

The next Amendment has the effect of associating the Secretary of State for Scotland with the Treasury. The Minister of Health would no longer have this power to make regulations. I suppose that the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the Treasury should not dabble by itself alone in matters which may affect Scotland. That means in terms of this limited issue—I want to put to the Committee what we are discussing—that employers of mariners whose place of business is in Scotland should not be subject to direction by the Treasury alone. It rather reminds me, if I may give this reminiscence, of a time when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was dissatisfied with our Private Bill procedure and carried his opposition to the point of suggesting in a Measure that the students of Ashridge should all be taught courses in the Private Bill procedure of the House of Commons. I suggest that this is taking a rather large hammer to crack a limited and small nut.

This Amendment also makes sense only on the assumption that there is any special Scottish significance in what is proposed. I do not think that is so. The negotiations for all the employers are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation, which is equally responsible for Scottish as for English or Welsh employers. There is absolutely no significance in the change from the Minister of Health to the Treasury, and I should have thought that it followed from Treasury responsibility for the Bill that all functions under the Bill should be reasonably transferred to the Treasury.

I agree that the Treasury must mind its behaviour whenever it involves itself with Scottish affairs—as I tried to do on my visit to Scottish national museums last autumn—and I think we all realise in the Treasury the importance of devoting proper attention to Scottish affairs. I do not believe that the Amendment in page 5, line 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is necessary or desirable, because in the negotiations that are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation that body is responsible for Scottish as well as for English and Welsh affairs.

As there is one more rather important Amendment to come, I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman may feel inclined to seek to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ross

The Financial Secretary was certainly very genial in his approach, but not very helpful. I would suggest that the next time he goes to Scotland he does not confine his visit to Scottish museums and St. Andrew's House, which are more or less the same thing.

Sir E. Boyle

I did not. I addressed Scottish exporters and was given some extremely good Scotch whisky.

Mr. Ross

Then the Financial Secretary can now go and tell the Prime Minister that addressing Scottish exporters is fun.

He told us that in this Clause no significant changes were being made. Why is this being done at all, then? The Financial Secretary proceeded to tell us that it is because it is far tidier as this is now a Treasury responsibility. Is he right about that? What is the Treasury going to do about this Bill once it is in force? Is it still a Treasury responsibility? The legislation and getting it through the House is a Treasury responsibility. The Financial Secretary knows that as well as I do, or if he does not it is high time that he did. But the collection will be for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Ministry of Pensions will account for it to the Treasury, and the Ministry of Pensions can account to the Ministry of Health on the one hand and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the other in respect of their share of what is forthcoming. So the participation of the Treasury in the actual practicalities of this Bill are practically nil. All the Treasury has done is to lay down policy, and now at long last it has accepted responsibility for the legislation resulting from that policy.

I do not doubt that there already have been regulations. There must be, since the Financial Secretary gave us rates, and these were drawn up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. I would tend to think that rather than discuss this matter with the Treasury they discussed it with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Financial Secretary made another point about the effect that one of the Amendments would have on these regulations already made. With all respect, I do not agree. Having read the original Act and that particular subsection, full power is given to the Treasury or whoever is responsible for bringing this matter before the House. This is not done by Statutory Instrument. This is one of the more pleasing features of the changes being made. It is the Minister who

will have to come to the House and put forward these regulations and these changes once they come in. I hope the Financial Secretary will see the tidiness of that.

I am unconvinced that this change should be made. The Financial Secretary has said that if the first Amendment were accepted the sun would rise, tomorrow. The National Health Service contributions will still be collected. Regulations which have to be made about foreign-going seamen will still be made as satisfactorily as in the past. Why on earth should the Treasury now decide to come and interfere in this Bill? Because the Financial Secretary has given no justification for the change proposed, I advise my hon. Friends to vote for our Amendment to leave out paragraph 2.

Question put, That the wards proposed to be left out to "including" in line 44, stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 172.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Stevens, Geoffrey
Longden, Gilbert Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Loveys, Walter H. Peel, John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Percival, Ian Studhoime, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pilkington, Sir Richard Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
McLaren, Martin Pitman, I. J. Taylor, W. d. (Bradford, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Pitt, Miss Edith Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Pott, Percival) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Thomas, Peter (Conway)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) price, David (Eastleigh) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Gromarty) Prior, J. M. L. Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
McMaster, Stanley R. Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) proudfoot, Wilfred Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Maddan, Martin Quennell, Miss J. M. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Maginnis, John E. Ramsden, James Turner, Colin
Maitland, Sir John Rawlinson, Peter van Straubenzee, W. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Vane, W. M. F.
Marten, Nell Rees, Hugh Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Rees-Davies, W. R. Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Mawby, Ray Renton, David Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Ward, Dame Irene
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Roots, William Watts, James
Mills, Stratton Hoyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Montgomery, Fergus Russell, Ronald Whitelaw, William
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Seymour, Leslie Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Morgan, William Sharpies, Richard Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Nabarro, Gerald Shaw, M. Wise, A. R.
Neave, Airey Shepherd, William Woirige-Cordon, Patrick
Nugent, Sir Richard Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Skeet, T. H. H. Woodhouse, C. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) Woodnutt, Mark
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Worsley, Marcus
Osborn, John (Hallam) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Speir, Rupert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Page, John (Harrow, West) Stanley, Hon. Richard Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.
Able, Leo Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Albu, Austen Galpern, Sir Myer Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Manuel, A. C.
Alien, Scholefield (Crewe) Ginsburg, David Mason, Roy
Awbery, Stan Gourley, Harry Mellish, R. J.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Greenwood, Anthony Millan, Bruce
Beaney, Alan Grey, Charles Milne. Edward J.
Benson, Sir George Griffiths, Rt. Hon. dames (Llanelly) Mitchison, G. R.
Blackburn, F. Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Moody, A. S.
Blyton, William Grimond, J. Morris, John
Boardman, H. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Moyle, Arthur
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mulley, Frederick
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hannan, William Neal, Harold
Bowles, Frank Hart, Mrs. Judith Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Boyden, James Hayman, F. H. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Brockway, A. Fenner Healey, Denis Oliver, G. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Henderson, Rt. H n. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Oswald, Thomas
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Herbison, Miss Margaret Owen, Will
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hewitson, Capt. M. Padley, W. E.
Callaghan, James Hilton, A. V. Paget, R. T.
Cliffe, Michael Holman, Percy Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Collick, Percy Holt, Arthur Parker, John (Dagenham)
Corbel, Mrs. Freda Houghton, Douglas Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hoy, James H. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Crosland, Anthony Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Peart, Frederick
Crossman, it. H. 8. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pentland, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Janner, Sir Barnett Probert, Arthur
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Proctor, W. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Deer, George Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Randall, Harry
Delargy, Hugh Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Rankin, John
Dempsey, James Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Redhead, E. C.
Dodds, Norman Kelley, Richard Reid, William
Driberg, Tom Kenyon, Clifford Reynolds, G. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John King, Dr. Horace Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Edelman, Maurice Lawson, George Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Ledger, Ron Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Lever, Harold (Cheatham) Ross, William
Evans, Albert Logan, David Short, Edward
Finch, Harold Loughlin, Charles Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Fitch, Alan MacColl, James Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Fletcher, Eric McKay, John (Wallowed) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mackie, John Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleid)
Forman, J. C. MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Snow, Julian Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Williams, D. J. (heath)
Sorensen, R. W. Thornton, Ernest Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Thorpe, Jeremy Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie Timmons, John Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Tomney, Frank Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Stones, William Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Wainwright, Edwin Woof, Robert
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Watkins, Tudor Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Swain, Thomas Weitzman, David Zilliacus, K.
Swinghsr, Stephen Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Sylvester, George White, Mrs. Elrene TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilkins, W. A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ross

As the result of the Guillotine, we have been denied the right to discuss some very important Amendments. But this is a very important Schedule, and in the light of what little explanation we have already had in respect of it from the Economic Secretary it is only fair that we should give the Financial Secretary an opportunity to give us an adequate explanation why these amendments to the 1957 Act are proposed, for they do not appear on the face of it to be very necessary and, in relation to what we gathered on the first Amendment, really do not mean much at all, and also why they are here in so many words.

We are dealing with a Schedule which we are told is of little or no importance, which takes up far more than any other part of the Bill, and a Schedule which, in relation to its language, certainly demands the attention of every hon. Member who is concerned about the clarity of the law. There are some strange phrases here, and some new ones. In paragraph 5 there is something which I have never seen in an Act of Parliament before. It states: the words from 'and the payment' onwards are hereby repealed. What that means I do not know. An explanation ought to be given to the Committee, but we shall not have an opportunity to have it. However, out of the generosity of heart that is always in evidence on this side of the Committee, I am prepared to give what time remains for the Financial Secretary to explain what the three main purposes of the Schedule are.

Sir E. Boyle

I am glad that by sensible use of our time in the two days in Committee we have had occasion to discuss, with only one exception, all the Amendments to which hon. Members opposite attached importance.

Hon. Members


Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman should be fair about this. We had to withdraw Amendments which we would rather have had discussed. We had to curtail our discussion on many important Amendments.

Sir E. Boyle

I do not think I shall withdraw what I said, but I will certainly in the last minute or two say something about the Second Schedule, which is brought into effect by Clause 1 (3).

It is a little complicated at first sight but, I think, quite simple in practice. The first paragraph substitutes an up-to-date definition of liability to pay National Health Service contributions which is exactly the same as liability to pay National Insurance contributions for a definition which has been rendered obsolete by the passage of events. What the paragraph does is to extend the reference which is made in the 1957 Act to the 1946–1956 Insurance Acts to cover the five further National Insurance Acts which have been passed since the National Insurance Act, 1956. That is the first function of the Schedule.

The second paragraph, which we have discussed at some length, transfers to the Treasury a power to make regulations about employer contribution for foreign-going seamen. I do not think I could add to that in view of the discussion that we have just had——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.

Question put, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill:—

Division No. 106.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Nugent, Sir Richard
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Harris, Reader (Heston) Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Allason, James Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Arbuthnot, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesfd) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Atkins, Humphrey Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Barber, Anthony Harvie Anderson, Miss Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Barlow, Sir John Hastings, Stephen Page, John (Harrow, West)
Barter, John Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Botsford, Brian Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hendry, Forbes Peel, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Percival, Ian
Berkeley, Humphry Hiley, Joseph Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Bidgood, John C. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bingham, F. M. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pitman, I. J.
Bishop, F. P. Hirst, Geoffrey Pitt, Miss Edith
Black, Sir Cyril Hobson, John Pott, Percival)
Bossom, Clive Holland, Philip Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bourne-Arton. A. Hollingworth, John Price, David (Eastleigh)
Box. Donald Hornby, R. P. Prior, J. M. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Boyle, Sir Edward Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Brains, Bernard Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brewis, John Hughes-Young, Michael Ramadan, James
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hurd, Sir Anthony Rawlinson, Peter
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hutchison, Michael Clark Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bullus, Wing Commander Erie Iremonger, T. L. Rees, Hugh
Burden, F. A. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rees-Davies, W. It.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Jackson, John Renton, David
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Jennings, J. C. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Roots, William
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Johnson, Erie (Blackley) Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Russell, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert Joseph, Sir Keith Seymour, Leslie
Chichester-Clark, R. Kaberry, Sir Donald Sharpies, Richard
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Shaw, M.
Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Shepherd, William
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Kershaw, Anthony Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Cleaver, Leonard Kimball, Martins Skeet, T. H. H.
Cole, Norman Kitson, Timothy
Cooper, A. E. Lambton, Viscount Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Lancaster, Col. C. G. Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)
Cordle, John Langford-Holt, J. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Corfield, F. V. Leavey, J. A. Speir, Rupert
Costain, A. P. Leburn, Gilmour Stanley, Hon. Richard
Coulson, J. M. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stevens, Geoffrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cunningham, Knox Lilley, F. J. P. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Curran, Charles Lindsay, Martin Studholme, Sir Henry
Dalkeith, Earl of Linstead, Sir Hugh Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Dance, James Litchfield, Capt. John Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
d 'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, W. J. (Bradford. N.)
Deedes, W. F. Longden, Gilbert Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
de Ferranti, Basil Loveys, Walter H. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
du Cann, Edward Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Eden, John McLaren, Martin Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Emery, Peter Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Tilney, John (W avertree)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Maclean, Sir Fltzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Turner, Colin
Farr, John McLean, Nell (Inverness) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fell, Anthony MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Vane, W. M. F.
Finlay, Graeme McMaster, Stanley R. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Fisher, Nigel Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Forrest, George Madden, Martin Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Foster, John Maginnis, John E. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maitland, Sir John Wall, Patrick
Freeth, Denzil Markham, Major Sir Frank Ward, Dame Irene
Gammons, Lady Marten, Neil Watts, James
Gardner, Edward Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Mawby, Ray Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Codber, J. B. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Goodhart, Philip Marion, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wise, A. R.
Goodhew, Victor Mills, Stratton Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Cough, Frederick Montgomery, Fergus Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Gower, Raymond More, Jasper (Ludlow) Woodhouse, C. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Morgan, William Woodnutt, Mark
Green, Alan Nabarro, Gerald Worsley, Maraud
Grimston, Sir Robert Heave, Airey
Hall, John (Wycombe) Noble, Michael TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Edward Wakefield and Mr. Noble.

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 170.

Abse, Leo Hannan, William Pentland, Norman
Albu, Austen Hart, Mrs. Judith Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hayman, F. H. Probert, Arthur
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Healey, Denis Proctor, W. T.
Awbery, Stan Henderson, R t. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Randall, Harry
Beaney, Alan Hewitson, Capt. M. Rankin, John
Benson, Sir George Hilton, A. V. Reid, William
Blackburn, F. Holman, Percy Reynolds, G. W.
Blyton, William Holt, Arthur Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boardman, H. Houghton, Douglas Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hoy, James H. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Ross, William
Bowles, Frank Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, Edward
Boyden, James Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Brockway, A. Fenner Janner, Sir Barnett Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Callaghan, James Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Snow, Julian
Cliffe, Michael Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, Percy Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kelley, Richard Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kenyon, Clifford Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cronin, John King, Dr. Ho[...]lace Stones, William
Crosland, Anthony Lawson, George Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Crossman, R. H. S. Ledger, Ron Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Swain, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Logan, David Swingler, Stephen
Davies, Harold (Leek) Loughlin, Charles Sylvester, George
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacColl, James Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, George Mackie, John Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
de Freitas Geoffrey MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Delargy, Hugh Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg) Thornton, Ernest
Dempsey, James Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thorpe, Jeremy
Dodds, Norman Manuel, A. C. Timmons, John
Driberg, Tom Mason, Roy Tomney, Frank
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Mellish, R. J. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edelman, Maurice Millan, Bruce Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Milne, Edward J. Watkins, Tudor
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mitchison, G. R. Weitzman, David
Evans, Albert Moody, A. S. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Finch, Harold Morris, John White, Mrs. Eirene
Fitch, Alan Moyle, Arthur Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fletcher, Eric Mulley, Frederick Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Neal, Harold Williams, D. J. (heath)
Forman, J. C. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Galpern, Sir Myer Oliver, G. H. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Oswald, Thomas Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Ginsburg, David Owen, Will Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gourlay, Harry Padley, W. E. Woof, Robert
Greenwood, Anthony Paget, R. T. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Grey, Charles Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Zilllacus, K.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES,
Grimond, J. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Cronin and Mr. Irvine
Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Coins Valley) Pearl, Frederick

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to Order [6th March].

Bill reported, without Amendment: to be read the Third time Tomorrow.