§ Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Willey.]
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I understand that this is a debatable motion. My objection to it is confined to the word "now". These Amendments are extremely important and should certainly be considered, but the point to which I direct the attention of the House is whether they should be "now" considered.
The House will know that the Bill received its Third Reading in another place on Thursday, that owing to the procedure of another place that stage involved the incorporation there of very important Amendments, that the Amendments made in another place were received here on Friday and that, owing, no doubt, to the haste with which this matter has been conducted, they were erroneously issued, misprinted and had to be reissued. My copy did not reach me until Monday.
We are confronted with four pages of Lords Amendments and eight pages of proposed Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments on what is undoubtedly the most complicated Bill of this Session, without our having had a proper opportunity to consider the complex issues raised by the Lords Amendments or to take the advice of the professional and technical bodies outside which could help us with these problems.
I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the wise and sensible comments made by a predecessor of his, Lord Silkin, who made it clear that the Government had got into a panic about this, that there was really no hurry whatever and that the Government would be wise to take time at this stage further to consider the issues involved.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Was the noble Lord to whom the right hon. Member is referring speaking on behalf of the Government?
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I was deliberately, for the reason you must have in mind, Mr. Speaker, not quoting. I was referring to the substance of the noble Lord's wise observations.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I will only say that the wisdom of the noble Lord to whom I referred is such that all who know him would assume that he would take this view on this problem. I am sure that on that I shall carry with me, if only as filial piety, the view of the Patronage Secretary.
My argument is unanswerably sound. It is that there is absolutely no need to have the appointed day on 6th April and to rush the Bill through all its stages in this House to meet that target. There is no urgency at all. The House of Commons has been very helpful to the present Government on previous Measures where there really has been some practical necessity to meet a timetable. I do not think that the Minister will dispute that. But there is no such problem here. To press this Measure through at this pace will only involve the right hon. Gentleman in infinitely more difficulties than he need face, as well as causing difficulties to hon. Members.
I do not know why the Government think it desirable to do this at a time when they are driving the House very hard, keeping us here most of the night on other legislation—at a time when they have been driven to resort to the farcial procedure of morning sittings—because they have made a mess of their legislative arrangements. We are at least entitled—and this argument is based on the word "now"—to know why the Lords Amendments should be now considered and why the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the alternative of putting off the appointed day to the autumn, giving a chance for technical and professional opinion outside to understand the Measure, express views on it and advise those of us who are interested so that we may debate the Bill more effectively. At 1507 the lowest, the House is at least entitled to an explanation.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Hon. Members and the public generally have been put in great difficulty because of the short period between another place deliberating on the Bill and those deliberations being brought back here. This is a very complicated Measure and it is difficult to understand, without spending a good deal of time on the subject, even the Amendments made to it in another place. We could have been given much longer in which to consider the issues involved, and we shall wish to return to this subject when debating the Amendments.
Meantime, it is right that we should register our protest now. This procedure is not only inconvenient and causing great hardship to many people in the professions who will have to administer the Measure. It is equally inconvenient to hon. Members, who must consider it in such a rush. We are bound to make mistakes, when working at such speed, and we are bound to cause litigation hereafter if we do not have time in which to consider each page of the Bill fully.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot discuss each page of the Bill fully. We can discuss only the Amendments.
§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the eloquent and brief plea that he made for the Lords Amendments to be considered not now but later. The Government are always telling us that they want their legislation in a hurry, but they never give the reasons why. As one who has just emerged from a prolonged consideration of one of the Government's more unpleasant Measures, the Iron and Steel Bill, I assure the House that we endeavoured at all stages of that Measure to extract from the Government the answers to two questions; first, what were their intentions in regard to the industry —their plan—and, secondly, the reasons for the hurry. On neither point were we ever satisfied.
Because of the discussion on the Iron and Steel Bill, I have, up to now—except 1508 for one occasion—been unable to express my opinions on this revolting and complicated Measure. Like my right hon. Friend, I have had a brief look at the Amendments, but not having had a chance to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, I find myself under a grave disadvantage. Those professional people who I have been able to consult on the subject have all expressed themselves in the same way; namely, that the Measure is of such intolerable complexity that they are unable to understand what it means.
If reforms of a doctrinaire order are to be foisted down the throat of the nation, the least the Minister can do is to grease the wheels with a little courtesy and consideration for those who do not agree with him and for those who are intimately concerned with the operation of the Bill.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to acknowledge that a few days' delay, while the import of these Amendments is being fully considered and digested, not only by us but by those outside who are intimately concerned with this matter, would be of great help. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to extend that courtesy to Parliament.
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
Further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I am worried about whether the Government have had time properly to consider the Lords Amendments, many of which—indeed, all of which—have met with universal approval throughout the country.
I could give many illustrations of the comments that have been made by experts on these matters. Suffice to say that they are united in praising the Lords Amendments, and the way in which great consideration and care, without political bias, was given by their Lordships in considering the Bill. They have unanimously advised Her Majesty's Government to give time for careful consideration of what has been declared universally to have been an improvement in the Bill. Today we have those Lords Amendments before us, but the Government are rejecting the vast majority of them out of hand.
I ask for more time to be given, not only for hon. Members on this side of the 1509 House to consider the implications of these Amendments, but also for hon. Members opposite and the Minister to consider whether he should give further consideration to them. In his dictatorial shuffling of the Bill willy-nilly through the House, he is not only upsetting Conservative hon. Members but the vast majority of ordinary decent people in the country.
§ Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
I wish to add a word in support of this protest. Some of us, like the Minister and his colleagues, may have been able to give undivided attention to this Bill, but, although we do that, we try also to consult people who are not able to give their undivided attention to the Bill. I am thinking of numerous chartered surveyors, solicitors and others who have to consider how the Bill will affect them and how these Amendments would improve or make the Bill work. They have not had time in the last few days or weeks to digest these proposed changes and to give us the benefit of their views and ideas on how the Amendments will affect them and the country.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to impose this Bill on millions of owner-occupiers, countless people will be affected. For that reason alone I urge him to give thought to this protest and to concede on this, if on nothing else, that there should be more time to enable us to consult with some of those who will advise many who will be affected.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
I am bewildered and not a little concerned about these exchanges. I suppose that I must declare an interest as I am connected with organisations which will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act. From talking with some of my colleagues who will have to administer the Act, I had formed the view that generally agreement had been reached whereby the appointed day would not be until next October.
§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot discuss the appointed day. We are discussing when we shall consider the Lords Amendments.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
I wanted to lead on to that. Obviously because this has not been agreed and is not a fact, the Government want to rush the discussion on these Amendments. It is clear that 1510 many points of view were not taken into account when the Bill was before us in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues give the impression that they are rushing this matter in order to get the Bill operating on a day which is much too soon, they will not get co-operation from those concerned nor the results which they wish. The Measure will not work in many instances, but certain parts might have been allowed to trickle through if the Government had the good will and co-operation of those who have to work on this matter. That will not happen if the appearance is given that it is being pushed through to arrive at some date arbitrarily fixed by the Government.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, for the good of the Bill itself, to go slow and to give the House a chance to consider what the Lords propose.
§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
I support the view expressed that we should not consider the Lords Amendments this afternoon, I wish to add one or two further reasons which I hope will convince the right hon. Gentleman before this debate is concluded.
It is an extremely short time since the Third Reading was given to the Bill in another place and we have not had time to consult our colleagues there to find exactly the meaning of these Amendments. I do not think that in any part of the House there would be disagreement that this is one of the most complicated Bills with which the House has had to deal. I should have thought that a much longer period than is normally allowed should elapse before we deal with these complicated Amendments.
I have been participating in debates on the Iron and Steel Bill and have had very little time to consult noble Lords and to go through these Amendments in detail with them to find what should be our attitude towards them. In the limited time which has been available, I have found it extremely difficult even to locate the Lords Amendments in the relevant parts of HANSARD because the Lords have a different procedure from ours and there is no easy way of finding a particular Amendment.
From my point of view there is another difficulty. A very important meeting, 1511 your own conference on electoral law, Mr. Speaker, is being held this afternoon at half-past Four. Obviously I cannot be in two places at once. I shall have to make the decision in about a quarter of an hour whether to stay here and take part in debates on the Lords Amendments or to go upstairs and take part in the equally important discussions in Mr. Speaker's Conference.
It would be a consideration if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to defer the debate to a later date in order to give us time to consult noble Lords and also to talk to people outside to ascertain their views. Not only the ordinary people will be affected, but learned professions, whose members have been writing to me and saying that the Bill is absolute double-dutch to them. In view of all these circumstances we should do well to defer this debate until a later date.
§ Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)
The case has been put from these benches with overwhelming conviction and plausibility. I want only to add a very short comment, because I am sure the House will want to come to a decision soon on this matter, particularly the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has an embarrassing choice of duties imposed on him to be made in a short time.
These Lords Amendments are exceptionally unusual. They are without precedent, at any rate in my experience of this House—which, incidentally, is of exactly the same length as that of the Minister and the Leader of the House. These Lords Amendments, apart from the other matters which they raise, include the omission of 58 complicated Clauses and 10 complicated Schedules. Those are matters each and all of which will have to be canvassed presumably by the House in the course of consideration of whether the Lords were right to omit them and whether the right hon. Gentleman is right to propose their restoration.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any precedent for this? If he has not one immediately in mind, no doubt his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can help him. He is already anticipating that suggestion and whispering into his ear some supplementary helpful points. We await with interest to find whether 1512 they sound as well spoken fortissimo by the Minister as pianissimo by himself.
§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
And with about the same audibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggests. Not only are the 58 Clauses and 10 Schedules of great complexity, but the House will recall that some of those Schedules were tabled at the last moment when this House last had an opportunity of considering the matter. Therefore, they have never been properly considered by this House and they come to us virtually for the first time today.
With all these considerations in mind, and having regard to the very formidable tasks laid upon the House in the few days in which these Amendments have been available while seeking also to follow the provisions and procedures on the Iron and Steel Bill, surely it would be equitable that there should be a longer time for consideration of this matter, for the benefit of the House—which is something —also for the benefit of the Bill—which is something—and for the benefit of the country, which is still more.
§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)
I rise to support the points put by my hon. and right hon. Friends, but before going into detail I wish to congratulate the Minister of State for Scotland on his appointment, because I think this is the first time he has been in the Chamber since then in an official capacity. I very much regret having to take him to task on this his first appearance. No less than 25 per cent. of the Amendments in their Lordships' names now before us come from Scotland and affect Scottish points of law. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I received this Notice Paper only on Monday.
We on this side of the House have an advantage which the Government do not have by the presence on our benches of an ex-Scottish Law Officer. I refer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I have been able to discuss these various legal points with him and to take his advice on them. He very much regrets that he is not able to be here today. But that is the 1513 only advice which I have been able to obtain because Scotland is some way from Westminster. I have been unable to consult various other professional interests. For these reasons and reasons which my hon. and right hon. Friends have already given, I have hope that the Government will think again on this matter.
§ Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)
I shall detain the House for only a moment or two in order to add my small voice to what has been said. I hope that the Minister will realise—if he has not done so already, I am sure that he will now—that this is not an ordinary Bill. It is a most unusual Bill in the sense that no one seems to understand it on the Government or the Opposition benches. To have to consider Lords Amendments to a Bill which hardly anyone understands makes the matter even more complicated.
It may be thought that on both sides of the House there are hon. Members learned in the law who might at least make a pretence of understanding the Bill and that we should leave it to them to consider the Lords Amendments with the legal wisdom at their disposal. But the great majority of hon. Members are not learned in the law. Even though they have a great affection and respect for their colleagues so trained, they do not want to put the whole responsibility for considering this matter on to their colleagues in the legal profession. It is only right that we should have the opportunity of consulting our constituents who wish to understand a little of what is intended. Before we are dragooned into consideration of the Lords Amendments, we should have an opportunity for consultation and advice which is only fair for hon. Members. I hope that the Minister will agree that this argument is plausible and will give way.
§ The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey)
The arguments have been forcibly put, but they have not been put very sensibly. The point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is one that afflicts all busy Members of the House. If one is busy in Parliament, it is extremely difficult to attend at the same time to all the duties to which one is called. That is unavoidable.
On the issue of consideration of the Lords Amendments, I have taken note 1514 of the fact that today's business was announced in the business statement on Thursday of last week, when no question about it was raised. As far as I know—
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
At the time the business statement was made on Thursday, some of the Amendments to the Bill had not yet been put into the Bill in another place.
§ Mr. Willey
Had the right hon. Gentleman felt strongly about the matter, that is something which he could have raised at the time. [Interruption.] I merely observe that when the announcement of this week's business was made no objection was taken, and as far as I know no objection has been taken subsequently.
As to consideration of the Bill, I may be wrong, but I do not anticipate the House having any great difficulty in discussing the Lords Amendments which are before the House. The Bill has had a protracted discussion in both Houses. Discussion of it has not been hurried. The closure was never moved or suggested in the proceedings in this House, neither has there been any suggestion in another place that consideration of the Bill should be in any way expedited. It has been fully considered. In fact, the matters which we will subsequently be discussing later this afternoon are matters which have been considered during our discussions on the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that subject to what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) appears to be wishing to say, we will be able to proceed with our consideration of the Lords Amendments.
§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Will the Minister be good enough to deal with this point? When he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that no objection was raised last Thursday, my right hon. Friend pointed out that consideration of the Bill in another place was not then finished. Does the Minister's case rest on the assumption that my right hon. Friend should be able to prophesy not only the outcome of the debate in another place, but also the fact that, however reasonable the Amendments of another place might be, they would be proposed to be rejected in toto by the Minister?
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 139.1517
|Division No. 252.]||AYES||[4.29 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Harper, Joseph||Oswald, Thomas|
|Alldritt, Walter||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Haseldine, Norman||Owen, Will (Morpeth)|
|Anderson, Donald||Henig, Stanley||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Archer, Peter||Hooley, Frank||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Horner, John||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Pentland, Norman|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Howarth, Henry (Wellingborough)||Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)|
|Barnett, Joel||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Bence, Cyril||Howie, W.||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Binns, John||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Probert, Arthur|
|Bishop, E. S.||Hunter, Adam||Randall, Harry|
|Blackburn, F.||Hynd, John||Rankin, John|
|Booth, Albert||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Redhead, Edward|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Bradley, Tom||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b' n&St. P'cras, S.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Brooks, Edwin||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Brown, Bob (N"c'tle-upon-Tyne, w.)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rose, Paul|
|Cant, R. B.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Kelley, Richard||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)|
|Chapman, Donald||Kenyon, Clifford||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Coe, Denis||Lawson, George||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Coleman, Donald||Leadbitter, Ted||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Ledger, Ron||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Lestor, Miss Joan||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Small, William|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Snow, Julian|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Lipton, Marcus||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lomas, Kenneth||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Davies, Robert (Cambridge)||Loughlin, Charles||Swain, Thomas|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Taverne, Dick|
|Dewar, Donald||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Thomson, Rt. Hn. George|
|Dickens, James||McBride, Neil||Thornton, Ernest|
|Dobson, Ray||McCann, John||Tinn, James|
|Doig, Peter||MacColl, James||Tomney, Frank|
|Driberg, Tom||Macdonald, A. H.||Urwin, T. W.|
|Dunn, James A.||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mackintosh, John P.||Walker, Harold (Doncester)|
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Maclennan, Robert||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Weitzman, David|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Wellbeloved, James|
|Ellis, John||MacPherson, Malcolm||Whitaker, Ben|
|Ennals, David||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Ensor, David||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Whitlock, William|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Finch, Harold||Mapp, Charles||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Mason, Roy||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mendelson, J. J.||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Floud, Bernard||Millan, Bruce||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Foley, Maurice||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Forrester, John||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Fowler, Gerry||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Woof, Robert|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Moyle, Roland||Yates, Victor|
|Gardner, Tony||Neal, Harold||Zilliacus, K.|
|Ginsburg, David||Newens, Stan|
|Gourlay, Harry||Oakes, Gordon||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Gregory, Arnold||Ogden, Eric||Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)||Orme, Stanley|
|Griffiths, Will (Exchange)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Body, Richard||Bullus, Sir Eric|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bossom, Sir Clive||Campbell, Gordon|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Cary, Sir Robert|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Channon, H. P. G.|
|Batsford, Brian||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Clark, Henry|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter||Clegg, Walter|
|Bell, Ronald||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Cooke, Robert|
|Bessell, Peter||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Costain, A. P.|
|Biffen, John||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Jopling, Michael||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Doughty, Charles||Kitson, Timothy||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Eden, Sir John||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Royle, Anthony|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Eyre, Reginald||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Sharples, Richard|
|Farr, John||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Longden, Gilbert||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lubbock, Eric||Smith, John|
|Fortescue, Tim||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan||Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)||Stodart, Anthony|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Maddan, Martin||Temple, John M.|
|Goodhew, Victor||Marten, Neil||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Gower, Raymond||Maude, Angus||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Grant, Anthony||Mawby, Ray||Tilney, John|
|Grant-Ferris, R.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Grieve, Percy||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Monro, Hector||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||More, Jasper||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Walters, Dennis|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Murton, Oscar||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hastings, Stephen||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Onslow, Cranley||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Holland, Philip||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hornby, Richard||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Percival, Ian||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hunt, John Hutchison, Michael Clark||Peyton, John Pink, R. Bonner||Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
§ Lords Amendments considered accordingly.