§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, at the end to insert:(f) will provide the Authority a statement of accounts in such form as the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury may require and with a view to its publication in the general report prepared by the Authority.The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the accounts of a programme company are made available in standard form, and appear in the annual report of the Authority. I am sure that everyone will welcome this proposal. The companies themselves will be most anxious to show the details of their losses so that their position may be reconsidered by this House, and as those who have spoken for them are so sure that the companies' position will deteriorate as a result of this Bill, I hope that the Amendment will prove acceptable to the Postmaster-General and to all hon. Members.
§ Mr. Mawby
I think that this Amendment has been put down mainly as a result of a misunderstanding, and probably because of the problems that it was said would be involved if the levy in Clause 7 was made on profits. In fact, Clause 7(7) already provides that the contracts shall provide for the I.T.A. to receive the information it needs about advertising receipts in order to compute additional payments, and Clause 7(10) states that the I.T.A. shall prepare a special account of the additional payments, which account shall be sent to 1765 the Comptroller and Auditor General, and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend can ask the Authority, under Section 15(5) of the original Act, for any information or document with respect to the financial transactions of the Authority. The Authority, for its own purposes, can obtain from the contractors information about the costs incurred in providing programmes and their receipts from advertising, under Clause 11(4.d), and can obtain access to the contractors' books, accounts and records under Clause 11(4,e).
Two main objections of principle can be raised against the idea of the Government dictating the form of accounts to be published in the I.T.A. Annual Report. They are that it is the directors of the programme companies upon whom the duty lies in the first place to decide, subject to the general requirements of the Companies Act, 1948, what information they should publish, and that it would be unreasonable to require the companies to provide detailed information for publication in this way about revenue and costs on their television activities which would be of value to their competitors in the same business.
Under Section 15(3) and (4) of the principal Act, the Annual Report of the I.T.A. is to be a general report of its proceedings, and to include its own accounts, and with the Amendment as it stands there would not appear to be any requirement on the I.T.A. to publish in its Annual Reports the companies' accounts filed with the Registrar of Companies. These accounts are available for public inspection. Most of the contractors engage in activities outside the television world, and their accounts, available for inspection at present, do not reveal much about their television activities.
Apart from the fact that the I.T.A., under paragraphs c, d and e of Clause 11(4), can find out what it wants to know for its own purposes about the contractors' financial transactions and affairs, the I.T.A. could arrange with the contractors, if necessary by provision in their contracts, that certain items of income and expenditure on television activities should be identifiable in the 1766 accounts which the contractors file with the Registrar of Companies under the general requirements of the Companies Act, 1948. I hope that I have given enough information to show that this is something which, had Clause 7 ended up in a different fashion, might well have been needed, but in present circumstances we can see no reason why this requirement should be put into the Bill. Therefore, I would ask the House not to accept it.
§ Mr. Chapman
Do I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman? Did he not say that the Authority could ask for the accounts to be published in some such form that these items would be readily identifiable? Did he say "could ask" or "will ask"? It makes quite a difference.
§ Mr. Mawby
Again, it is no good our trying to hamstring the I.T.A. in this matter. Obviously, the I.T.A. in renewing contracts will take advantage of its powers under the Bill. It will also be able to make changes in the contracts if it believes that it is essential that as the Authority it should know more about the financial affairs of a programme company than it knows now. It can already do this, because it will be renewing contracts next year, and we say that for this reason there is no need for the Amendment.
§ Mr. Chapman
I am rather disappointed. In Standing Committee we were examining Clause 7 as originally drafted and the alternative. Naturally, many of us wished to refer to the public accounts of the programme contractors in order to make judgments on these matters. Our problem became one that as legislators we were unable to find the facts on which to make the judgments. I had reports prepared by the Library of the House on a number of these companies in their television activities in recent years, as a background to our debates. It was reported to me—I confirmed it by looking it up myself—that in some cases the accounts did not sufficiently describe the television activities of the groups concerned for us to have reliable figures on which to work
The Assistant Postmaster-General is putting Parliament in a difficult position. 1767 It is all very well to say that the Authority will be able to obtain the figures in order to make up its mind, but we as legislators have, on occasion, to make up our minds, on the granting of these public franchises indirectly through the Authority, about whether something proper and laudable which should be continued is being done or proposed under the terms of an Act of Parliament.
The Assistant Postmaster-General is not enabling Parliament to have the facts on which to make up its mind and form judgments. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider the matter again. I concede that the I.T.A. may be satisfied. It is very important that Members of Parliament also should be satisfied in these financial matters.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Willey
If I had any doubt before I heard the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply I have no doubt now that we ought to accept the Amendment. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, if we do some research, we shall satisfy ourselves that the Authority has power to obtain and make available the information which we seek. It is conceded that, if this information had been available for our discussions in Standing Committee, those discussions would have been much better informed and we should have had a much clearer view of the position of the programme companies.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, when the Bill became an Act, the position would be so transformed that it would, in fact, be undesirable to place a burden such as this on the Authority because, presumably, it would exercise its powers and make the information available.
To be fair to the Authority, if we consider that information should be made available, we ought to impose this as a requirement. It is always better that Parliament should do this. It makes the position of the Authority plain. It causes no embarrassment, and everyone knows that the information should be made available. The important point is that it should be made available in standard form.
I still hope that the Government will reconsider the question and, if they are not willing to accept an Amendment pre- 1768 cisely in these terms, incorporate an Amendment to this effect.
§ Mr. Bevins
Naturally, I am on exactly the same wave-length as my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and I agree with all he said. This is a difficult business, as we all appreciated in Committee. The Authority not only can but does secure quite a lot of information about the financial position of the various companies at present. Clearly, were this not so, it would not have been possible for me to produce a good deal of statistical information during our proceedings in Committee.
I must be frank with the House. One of the difficulties here is that the activities of the television contractors, generally speaking, are multifarious and diversified, and it would not be easy so to arrange matters that all the financial results of their television activities were segregated into one account. In a straightforward case, yes. But, in the case of a company which had television interests, theatre interests, and so on, and perhaps also—this presents a real difficulty—one or two subsidiaries producing programmes, I doubt that the Government would have the legal power to insist that the accounts asked for or required by the Authority include the accounts of the subsidiaries even though they were engaged in television. That is a very real difficulty.
I am quite willing to have a further look at this, and if I feel that it is practicable and desirable—
§ Mr. W. R. Williams
I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he will have another look at this, because the Amendment says that the Authority should havea statement of accounts in such form as the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury may require…Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at it from that point of view.
§ Mr. Bevins
I take the hon. Member's point.
I was pointing out that one of the difficulties is that it is doubtful whether we should have the legal power to include the finances of subsidiaries in those of the parent company. However, I will gladly look at the matter again. I 1769 understand quite well why the House is interested, in this subject. If it is feasible to do what is asked, I will do it.
§ Mr. Willey
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. W. R. Williams
I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, at the end to insert:(f) if so required will incur expenditure on the production of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority amounting over a period defined by the Authority to a sum not less than a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor as the Authority, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, may determine.I am sorry for many reasons that we have to deal with this Amendment at this moment with so much to do between now and the time that we shall be rising, because it is a very important Amendment from our point of view.
It is obvious, I think, from the decision of the House on Clause 7 that the majority of us believe that the financial provisions of Clause; 7 leave the programme companies, large and small, on a good, sound financial basis. I say that because a lot of information of a contrary character has been bandied about the House from time to time. We have heard that some of the big companies would fall into bankruptcy and that many of them would be destroyed. In view of the prophecies given to us by the Postmaster-General, I cannot accept that anything of the kind will happen. I feel sure that there will be no big queues in July, 1964, no big rush of new entrants, because of the redundancies and vacancies created by the departing big four companies.
On the other hand, we thought that there might be difficulties regarding some of the smaller or medium companies, and, in order to ensure that their position was safeguarded, we agreed to Amendments moved by the Postmaster-General which would provide the smaller and medium companies with many additional resources. I therefore think that I am fair in saying that the House accepts that the financial position of the companies, large and small, will be reasonably sound and that they will be provided with adequate resources in order that they may fully and efficiently carry out the duties and obligations to 1770 the viewers imposed on them by the House.
In our view, there is no reason why companies should not maintain high standards of production or should not make better productions than they have done in the past. We believe that if they mean business and if they treat this as a national service and put their best into it there is ample room for expansion. In our opinion, they should be able to provide a high proportion of live programmes. It has been suggested that if we do not give them more money, allow them practically to print money, these people will take retaliatory measures and provide inferior programmes, programmes of less good quality than they have done in the past.
I have never believed that they would do this because, if they present inferior programmes and reduce the level of their approach, the only source of their revenue, advertisements, is bound to reflect the dissatisfaction of the public and the viewers with what they are doing. I do not believe that they will have a single excuse or argument for not providing a good proportion of high-standard, live programmes. There will not be any justification for these companies to resort to mechanical programmes as against live programmes. If they do so, it will be not for financial reasons, but on grounds of expediency.
In our opinion, there should be no contraction in the industry. We believe, on the other hand, that if it does its job properly, if it carries on in the right way and learns, above all, some of the lessons of the Pilkington Report, there is no reason why the industry should not expand considerably. Therefore, there should be no reduction in establishment. There should be no worsening of the conditions of workers in the industry, either in pay or in working conditions. As far as we can see, there is no reasonable excuse for redundancy in independent commercial television.
The House may ask why I am emphasising these points. The reason is that a number of people in the industry, including managers, producers, workers, electricians and other skilled people, have been transmitting to the House of Commons and to hon. Members the view that some of the things which I deny will take 1771 place will, in fact, occur if the companies do not get the resources which they consider they should have.
A good deal has been said about the friends of the trade unions in the industry. I think that my record in regard to working for trade unions will stand the test in this House or elsewhere. I am certain that it compares fairly well with the record of those who have been fairly loud-mouthed here tonight but who are not now in their place when we are discussing a practical way in which to safeguard and reassure the workers in the industry.
I do not propose to say more about it than that. I take strong exception to what certain hon. Members have said about our attitude towards the workers in the industry. We have seriously considered every paper that was put to us. We tried to examine them all in the light of what we thought best, not only for the people in the industry, but for workers generally, and what was right and equitable for viewers as well as workers.
I understand the concern and anxiety of those who have written to us and I can understand the source of their concern. The reason simply is that they do not trust the programme companies. They are worried not so much about financies, but they cannot trust the companies to do the right thing with them.
I have received a recent letter from the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee which deals with this point. Referring to the programme companies, the letter states:Had they in the past devoted more money to programmes and less to profits, the present position would not have arisen. But it has arisen and if must be controlled.I entirely agree with those sentiments. It is fantastic to think that programme companies which are making profits of up to 55 per cent. have left the impression in the minds of people working for them that they are always in danger of redundancy and of lack of expansion and development in the industry. We agree, therefore, that in view of the doubt and concern which exists among the workers in the industry, we must do something by Statute to safeguard their position. Quite simply, the purpose of the Amendment is to try to do that and to correct the situation.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ We say in the Amendment that there should be a statutory duty upon the Authority to ensure that a high proportion of the available income is spent by companies upon programmes; in other words, that they face up to their primary purpose. The primary purpose of commercial television is to provide programmes, and good programmes. So we say in the Amendment that they must expend a high proportion of their income on good programmes and expansion of the industry. We are not asking that this should be done except on a keen analytical basis. We suggest that there must be surveys and discussions with the companies, that the Authority should consult the Postmaster-General, and when the consent of the Postmaster-General is obtained, agreement shall be reached with regard to the proportion of the revenue and the income to be expended on programmes. In other words, the important thing is the programme. The right hon. and learned Member for Wallasey referred to a statement I made the other day—
§ Mr. Williams
I meant the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I do not know whether I should apologise to Wirral or Wallasey. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I know both of them very well.
§ Mr. Williams
Yes. I will—to the two "Ws".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my statement and correctly interpreted what I said. I repeat it now. I, for one, do not want these people to work without reasonable profit. I have not suggested that in the Committee or on the Floor of the House. It is inherent in this, of course, that we shall be looking not only at what is reasonable to expend on programmes but also at what is reasonable profit for the companies. These two elements must be brought together, examined and surveyed by the Authority and re-examined by the Postmaster-General, whom it will be consulting, and after agreement it should be acting on the 1773 lines of our Amendment. We think that this is the only way to safeguard the situation and make sure that some of the concern and anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House will not materialise, for the simple reason that it should not materialise, we believe, on the basis of the information made available to us. If it does materialise, it is because there is something wrong with the State of Denmark.
§ Mr. Shepherd
I do not think that the suggestion made in the Amendment is practicable, although I naturally accept the idea behind the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams).
I intervene merely to say how distasteful I have found this purely artificially generated fear in the minds of the workers. It is one of the most despicable and unedifying examples of private enterprise that I have had the misfortune to witness. The programme companies know quite well that even with the new levy they will be perfectly able to provide employment for the existing employees. The finance will provide facilities even to improve existing programmes. There is no ground for fear. They have sown fear in the minds of the workers merely to try to grab extra profit at the expense of the taxpayer. I find this a disgusting and humiliating experience.
It is not true that one gets better programmes merely by spending more money. I have had enough experience of the film industry to know that lavish expenditure of money does not necessarily result in an acceptable product. What I want to see in this industry more than anything else is some artistic integrity. If the people at the top of this business would take more interest in it and devote more time to it and make those below them feel that they are really behind them, I believe we should get very much better programmes even at lower cost than at present.
One of the great difficulties about this business is that everyone is making so much money, not only in this field but in others, that there really is not the drive behind the business, not enough living television as a means of livelihood and fortune. I would like to see not necessarily the expenditure of more 1774 money but much more artistic integrity, much more drive in the companies, much more belief in television. If we have these things, we can get much better programmes even at lower cost.
§ Mr. V. Yates
I find it rather difficult to accept the description of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) of the fears of the workers as artificially generated. He must be quite ignorant of the causes that have given rise to these fears. We are in a fool's paradise if we want to dismiss an argument put forward not by one organisation but a very large number.
I said earlier during proceedings on this Bill that there was a fear on the part of companies that they would not have the resources to continue. I was thinking of the big programmes, such as those undertaken by the major companies like A.T.V., and the possibilities of exporting programmes which are very costly. I mentioned a programme for the week ended 28th April. The cost to A.T.V. was £594,939. It is a big item to consider in a budget.
I am not saying that the fears of the workers are wholly justified, but we must examine them more deeply than the hon. Member has just done. He spoke of artistic integrity. In Committee upstairs I made reference to a memorandum sent to us by some of the artistes in television, the Screen Writers Guild. This is a very important body of people who write for television.
In the momerandum, the Guild said that it was opposed to the tax on gross advertising because, it said:…in our view such a tax would induce the companies to maintain their profits at the expense of programme budgets which will inevitably be cut and will result in the purchase of the cheapest kind of low-quality programme.I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to see that. The memorandum added:A tax on advertising income would thus aggravate the situation to the extent that the quality of programmes would inevitably suffer.I was a bit concerned about that. I raised the matter in Committee and wrote to the Screen Writers Guild. I asked what evidence it had for one of the arguments it put forward, that there was a tendency to restrict budgets. I had a very interesting reply and I would 1775 like the House to consider it because, by this Amendment, we seek to safeguard people like this. The general secretary wrote to me on 6th May:In the field of drama, which we believe to be the life-blood from which the quality of all other programmes stems, producers generally have to work within an overall budget imposed by the Companies. For example, if a producer is allocated £5,000 for a play of one hour duration, then he could not accept a play, however good, which might cost more to produce, and therefore many plays of merit would be rejected.The letter says:Also when a budget is imposed a writer must keep his play down to a certain number of characters, a certain number of sets, etc., etc., and tends therefore to write within the confines of a financial fence.Furthermore, apart from one or two notable exceptions, there is a tendency for Companies to do everything in the cheapest way—this is business practice. The less money and time spent on rehearsals, studio time, fees, etc., provided the end product still attracts advertising revenue, the better the Companies like it.As evidence of that, it goes on to say:We have been negotiating for four years for minimum terms and conditions for writers. Throughout this period we have obtained certain advances, but even so, at a time when the companies were making large profits, our members were earning the following incomes…I shall not go into a long list, but 57½ per cent, of the members of this organisation were getting up to only £1,000 a year, although some of them, of course, were getting much more.
The letter goes on:I think you will agree if one accepts the evidence of the Pilkington Committee that standards are generally too low, there can be no doubt that the companies must be blamed for not ploughing back into programme budgets sufficient money to provide the best quality programmes…it is essential that positive inducements and safeguards are introduced, in order that writers, the men who start with a blank sheet of paper, can be freed from financial restrictions, to provide the finest drama in the world.The Amendment is designed so that we can get the best programmes possible. If it is not practicable, I hope that at least the Postmaster-General will keep this clearly in mind, because it would be a tragedy if the standard of broadcasting were to be lowered for reasons like that. We could have such a safeguard from the words of the Amendment— 1776a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor as the Authority, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, may determine".That safeguard would help to give confidence not only to the writers but to those who produce the scenery, the carpenters, the painters and all the other artists who are concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has not been here very long. It does not do him much credit to try to mimic an hon. Member who is trying to put forward a serious argument. He had enough Amendments in Committee which he withdrew without taking them to a Division. I hope that he will try to make an intelligent contribution tonight.
This is a matter in which hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite, have expressed great interest. We want to safeguard the position of the workers of the industry and we are entitled to ask that the Bill should contain a safeguard against losing the best which artistic talent can provide for this industry. For that reason I support the Amendment.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. David James
I need not intervene for more than a minute or so, because of the tenor of my previous remarks. I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said, but it strikes me that there is a fundamental difficulty in the drafting of this Amendment. It refers toa sum not less than a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts…".Does the hon. Gentleman mean the net advertising receipts, or the gross advertising receipts after levy? We first have to make sure that there is a cake, and then know how it is expended. I could not support the hon. Gentleman as long as the nature of the cake remained obscure.
§ Mr. W. R. Williams
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have known that we were dealing with net receipts, because gross receipts have been eliminated by the Amendment introduced by his right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Mawby
I think that everyone must be concerned, and certainly my right hon. Friend and I are, when we see, as we did the other day, a demonstration based on fear. This is a great industry in which there are people skilled in all sorts of crafts. For one reason or another they are afraid that they will lose their livelihood at some time in the future, and they came to this House because they wanted Parliament to do something about it.
We all understand and sympathise with those who are faced with this fear of the future, but we believe that this fear is needless. We are still of the opinion that all the Jeremiahs will be confounded. But even if this were not so, I believe that the Amendment would not solve the problem, and I say this for a number of reasons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, one does not necessarily get better programmes by spending more money. Some first-class programmes have been produced on a shoestring, while other extremely expensive programmes have been considered by a number of people to have been hardly worth making.
The important thing to remember is that the Government are determined that programme companies will not be prevented from producing good programmes. In fact, the free slice and the changes which we have made in it have been deliberately designed to ensure that the smaller companies in particular have this better opportunity of producing programmes and are not starved of funds.
The I.T.A. has a responsibility, in appointing contractors and running the system of independent television, to ensure that good programme standards are maintained. Secondly, it is in the Authority's interest, in its competition with the B.B.C., to see that good programmes are produced. This is an important point, because every programme company knows that a fall in programme standards automatically leads to a fall in the number of viewers; that a fall in the number of viewers means a lower rating; and that a lower rating means less advertising income. It is, therefore, obvious that programme companies will do everything they can to see that their 1778 programmes are of a high standard and are capable of competing with the other programmes. In this respect, we shall not need this sort of Amendment.
The Amendment calls on the programme contractors to incur certain programme expenditure. It is not specified what percentage should be used. No programme company faced with this sort of thing would know that my right hon. Friend and the I.T.A. might not set a proportion 90 per cent, or 95 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) pointed out, the Amendment does not refer to advertising receipts after the levy has been deducted. It merely refers to advertising receipts.
No company would be prepared to enter into a contract on these conditions when so much is unknown. It could make a great deal of difference to the companies in future, by laying down a requirement to spend a certain amount of money or a certain proportion of income. This is something which we hope all the companies would do—it is their life-blood. If they do not put on good programmes they will go out of business. But to write it in the Bill is unnecessary and would not help those we want to help, all those engaged in all aspects of television.
§ Mr. Willey
I agree with a great deal of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, but I disagree with his conclusion. This is objective judgment based on inadequate evidence, but I think commercial television programmes have improved since the Pilkington Report. I do not believe that as a result of the Bill the programmes will deteriorate. On the contrary, I think that they will improve further.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that the attitude some of the spokesmen of the programme companies have taken has been most unfortunate. Unfortunately, it will have repercussions in the television industry. I only hope that by sticking to the principles which we have in the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, the view that has been expressed during many of the representations which have been made to us will not be continued, but will be abandoned, and that there will be a real effort on both sides of the industry to make the Act work. I agree 1779 with the hon. Gentleman that there is not an equation between money and good programmes. It is unfortunate if the view gets about that there is. That could do a great deal of harm to television, as it has done in the film industry.
Very strong representations have been made to us and we should do our best to allay misgivings. We have had a great deal of reference on both sides to the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee, which has kept us equipped during discussions from the very first, indeed before the Bill was introduced, by representations to the Pilkington Committee. It took the view that there should be an obligation on the programme companies to devote a certain proportion of income to their programmes.
I have also had repeated representations from producers of programmes. Perhaps this misgiving ought not to be so deep as it appears, but there is serious misgiving among the producers. I have had many representations of different forms on the way in which the companies might feel afraid to plough back more money into production.
We should try to make it clear that we do not intend the programmes to deteriorate as a result of the Act. I
§ accept at once that if one tries to devise a formula one immediately runs into difficulty. I accept at once that if the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it would not be a good thing if it ever had to be implemented, but it would be a good sanction to have behind the discussion. The Authority would be in a better position if it had this sanction when discussing the quality of programmes with particular companies.
§ For these reasons, I think that it is a worth-while Amendment. It would strengthen the position of the Authority and allay the genuine misgivings which have been expressed in our deliberations. As the Postmaster-General will not accept the Amendment, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Mr. Bevins
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but merely to endorse what my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has said. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends feel that we ought to take this to a Division, so be it.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 150.1781
|Division No. 155.]||AYES||[9.26 p.m.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Parker, John|
|Bence, Cyril||Hunter, A. E.||Rankin, John|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Bowles, Frank||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Rhodes, H.|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Chapman, Donald||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)|
|Collick, Percy||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||King, Dr. Horace||Ross, William|
|Cronln, John||Lawson, George||Small, William|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dempsey, James||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Donnelly, Desmond||Loughlin, Charles||Steele, Thomas|
|Duthie, Sir William||Lubbock, Eric||Swingler, Stephen|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||McBride, N.||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Fitch, Alan||MacColl, James||Tomney, Frank|
|Fletcher, Eric||MacDermot, Niall||Wade, Donald|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||McInnes, James||Weitzman, David|
|George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crm'thn)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Willey, Frederick|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)||Manuel, Archie||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Mason, Roy||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Hannan, William||Mendelson, J. J.||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Harper, Joseph||Millan, Bruce||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mitchison, C. R.||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Herbison, Mlss Margaret||Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phllip(Derby,S.)|
|Hilton, A.V||O'Malley, B. K.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Holman, Percy||Paget, R. T,||Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.|
|Houghton, Douglas||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Aitken, Sir William||Glyn, sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie|
|Allason, James||Goodhew, Victor||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian||Green, Alan||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Grosvenor, Lord Robert||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Gurden, Harold||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippanham)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Barter, John||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Percival, Ian|
|Batsford, Brian||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Pott, Percivall|
|Bell, Ronald||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Holland, Philip||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hollingworth, John||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.||Roots, William|
|Boyle, Rt. Hun. Sir Edward||Hughes-Young, Michael||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Braine, Bernard||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Sharples, Richard|
|Bromley-Davenport.Lt. -Col. Sir Walter||Iremonger, T. L.||Shaw, M.|
|Brooman-White, R.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Shepherd, William|
|Brown, Alan Tottenham)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd A Chiswick)|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Smithers, Peter|
|Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Gary, Sir Robert||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Chataway, Christopher||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Kershaw, Anthony||Talbot, John E.|
|Cooke, Robert||Kitson, Timothy||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Leavey, J. A.||Teeling, Sir William|
|Costain, A. p.||Lewie, Kenneth (Rutland)||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Litchfield, Capt. John||Turner, Colin|
|Crawley, Aidan||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Critchley, Julian||Longden, Gilbert||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.||MacArthur, Ian||Vane, W. M, F.|
|Doughty, Charles||McLaren, Martin||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|du Cann, Edward||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell|
|Emery, Peter||McMaster, Stanley R.||Wall, Patrick|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Maddan, Martin||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Marlowe, Anthony||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Wise, A. R.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Mawby, Ray||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Freeth, Denzil||Mills, stratton||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gammans, Lady||Montgomery, Fergus||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Gardner, Edward||Neave, Airey|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael||Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.|