HC Deb 11 August 1947 vol 441 cc2193-222
Mr. Pitman

I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "Transitional Powers" and to insert "Extended Purposes."

I have already spoken on this.

Mr. C. Williams

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is a very good one indeed. I believe it may very well commend itself to the Government.

The Attorney-General

I am in a position to "accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

6.35 a.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

We have had very full discussion on the provisions and details of this Bill, and I hope I shall not take up much time going over the ground again. I shall certainly not follow hon. Members opposite who, having been discouraged very wisely, from making speeches in the Debate on the state of the nation, took the opportunity on this Bill to get those speeches off their chests. I have said several times, and said frankly, that from the legal point of view this Bill does not, in my view, greatly increase the already extensive powers which have been entrusted to the Government by Parliament, but it will remove the doubts which have been raised as to the extent to which those admittedly wide powers can be used for purposes connected not only with the transition from war to peace, but the present economic emergency which, as the Opposition will appreciate, has its roots further back, and is not confined to circumstances of a purely transitional nature.

The very fact that it is in the power of the courts to go beyond what has been done by a Minister in the exercise of delegated powers makes it all the more important that Ministers themselves should be scrupulously careful to see that they do not go outside the limits of the powers allotted to them by Parliament. If there is to be doubt whether what they want to do is within the scope of existing powers or not, they should ask Parliament to extend these powers and put the matter beyond the possibility of doubt. That is what we are asking Parliament to do in this Bill—to make it quite clear that the existing powers, not new ones, contained under the 1945 Act, shall be available for the wide purposes to which the present situation may necessitate they may be directed. Hon. Members opposite, who have sought to exploit every difficulty in which the country has found itself during the course of the past two years, have sought [Interruption]. The noble Lord who so rarely succeeds in attracting the attention of the House is apparently attracting his own attention by speaking to himself. As I was not able to hear what he said, I am in some difficulty in replying to him. Apparently my remarks were distasteful, as I well can understand. Hon. Members who have sought t0 exploit every difficulty——

Mr. Speaker

I wonder whether "exploit" is really the right word to use. Does it not rather impute unworthy motives to the Opposition? That is just the sort of thing which will keep us debating this Bill.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)


The Attorney-General

If I were called upon—I was unable to hear whether i was or not owing to the interruptions of the noble Lord—to withdraw what I said, I would certainly do so. I was saying also that hon. Members who have sneered at the attempts which we have made to build up the export trade, who have opposed bread rationing, who have tried to make petrol free for pleasure motoring—one of the hon. Members who took the most part in that——

Mr. Hogg

On a point of Order. The learned Attorney-General—and I wish only to assist him in this—has asked for a short Third Reading Debate. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that on Third Reading one is limited to what is in the Bill. I have been trying to see what there is about us in the Bill which would justify what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has said about us in his Third Reading speech. As he appealed for a shorter Third Reading Debate, I think it might assist him and the House if you ruled upon that proposition, that he really ought to confine his remarks to what is in the Bill; and that, unless he can find something about us in the Bill, he should stop talking about us.

Sir P. Macdonald

May I ask the Attorney-General, since he refers to petrol, if he himself uses petrol for running his pleasure yacht, or whether he navigates it by sail alone?

Mr. Speaker

In reply to the point of Order, I would point out that I rose before about the word "exploit" because I thought it might lead us into dangerous paths. The hon. Member asked me what a Third Reading speech should be about. I happen to know the page in Erskine May on which that question is answered: The Debate is more restricted in the later stages, and is limited to the matters contained in the Bill. I think that if we apply that Rule it will be better for the Debate.

Earl Winterton

Now they have brought in the Leader of the House, I see.

The Attorney-General

I was only leading up to the point that hon. Members-opposite have been quite consistent with their past attitude to His Majesty's Government, in the attitude they have adopted on this Bill. They have sought to suggest that it involves some attack on freedom and on liberty. It does not. I venture to think that when they have got back to their constituencies, they will find that they are mistaken in that view. Liberty and freedom are as dear to hon. Members on this side of the House as, I have no doubt, they are dear to a great many hon. Members upon the opposite side.

Our whole policy in this Bill is to enable us to take measures which are directed to enabling the ordinary men and women to live a fuller life and achieve a greater dignity. That is the purpose behind the policy of the Government. We recognise that, great as individual liberty may be, high as we rate personal freedom, the life and the liberty, and the very existence and well-being of the community is something greater still; and it is for that reason that we have found it necessary to take the powers provided in this Bill, which will enable us to use the regulations continued in the 1945 Act for the three additional purposes which are specified here. I ask the House to let this Bill go forward to its Third Reading as the emblem, the hall-mark, the very badge of our determination and resolution—the determination and resolution not only of the Government but, I hope, of all Members in this House, and, indeed, of the whole people—to ensure that the community shall neglect no means—no means even if they involve discomfort, interference with property, interference even with liberty itself—to ensure that the whole power and strength of the community are devoted to this battle. This is a battle which is not only for the economic life of our country but for the well-being and, as we believe, the true liberty of every subject of the Crown.

Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down could he toll the House in what way this Bill assists His Majesty's Government towards the control of taxation of betting and gambling?

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I listened to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say with great attention and with some degree of puzzlement, because I remembered what he said at an earlier stage of this Debate, that when you had no case, the right tactics to adopt were to belabour your opponents. I thought he was putting that into practice. It passed through my mind at one moment that he really realised at last that this was a thoroughly bad Bill and that he wanted to get the Third Reading put off, if by his advocacy and provocation he could possibly achieve it. Then I came to the conclusion that, after all, a new day was dawning and it was only right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the earliest opportunity of making his normal daily apology. Unless the Lord President has something else up his sleeve to keep this House sitting, then I assume that this is the last Bill we shall have to consider this Session. I cannot congratulate the Government on its content.

I regard it as a thoroughly bad Bill, but whether it is worse than so many of the other Bills which have been forced through Parliament this Session, I would hesitate to express an opinion. After all, we know that it is an entirely misleading Bill. Its Preamble is misleading. He said that its purpose is to enable persons to live a fuller life and to achieve greater liberty. There is nothing about that in the Preamble, and really, although we know part of this Preamble is designed for propaganda purposes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was inadequate for that purpose. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) both indicated a little time ago that this Bill contained the policy of the Government for dealing with the present crisis. I read this Bill many times and I can find no statement of policy in it at all. It does not exist. If, relying on their observations, I made a few comments upon the Government's policy, I may run some risk of being called to Order in referring to something which is not in the Bill. One thing at least is clear about this misleading Bill, and that is that it extends the power of the Government of making orders under the existing regulations and of imposing fresh fetters upon the people of this country, upon their liberty, upon property, and upon everything that affects them.

It is also clear that this Bill to some extent reduces the jurisdiction of the courts in expressing any view as to whether or not an order or direction is ultra vires. That quite clearly is the intention of this Measure. It is a Bill to prevent the individual from going to the courts and saying "This is a monstrous, illegal order made upon me." After this Bill becomes law, if ft does become law, presumably the Government will have many weeks when they will be free to make such orders as they please without any check being exercised on them either by Parliament or by the courts. All I can say is that we shall watch the Government's actions under this Measure with the greatest possible care. We shall watch them to see that they do in fact exercise the powers fairly, and we shall watch with great interest to see whether the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Cross-man) and which the right hon. Gentleman on this side referred to, that the Bill did contain a restriction on our freedom and liberty, is indeed a correct view or whether this is what the Lord President first said, just a Bill to secure the removal of some doubt.

I do not think it would be in Order to deal with all the suggestions and insults the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General uttered in moving the Third Reading. I do not understand what he meant when he said that Members on this side had been discouraged from speaking in the Debate on the state of the nation. Perhaps he meant that some were discouraged by the length of time taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion. In spite of the provocation of the Attorney-General, I do not propose to say more than this in conclusion. When the people of this country realise the powers that the Government are taking under this Measure, realise the extent to which our lives and liberties and property are going to be subject to the whims of Government officials and members of this Government, I am sure they will express their views on what has been done in these last few days, at the first opportunity, in no uncertain terms.

6.52 a.m.

Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)

I ask the indulgence of the House for speaking, but I have heard during the course of the night so many references to the Member for East Coventry from the other side that it would be discourteous not to say a word, after many hours of silence and listening. I feel that attempts were being made to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and some of us here and to suggest there was on this side, a serious difference of view on the nature of this Bill. I stand by everything which I said on Second Reading, and I want to make it quite clear that, in my view, this Debate has been enormously valuable to the country. The country had every right to have a Debate on this Bill. I have listened very patiently to the Tory Opposition and the Tory case. I think there is a genuine difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the problem of liberty, and I want to make two brief points on that problem.

It seems to me there is agreement between the two sides that in time of war, all the powers which the Government are now retaking under this Bill are justifiably taken by a democratic nation. Nobody, so far as I know, on the other side disputed that point. They dispute the right of the Government in a crisis in peacetime to do the same. I believe they do not dispute that the situation now is as serious as it was even in 1940. They do not dispute it is as serious. They say it is different. But in my view all the things in 1940 which demanded the proscription of our liberty which we then imposed upon ourselves, are valid today. Therefore on the substantial question of whether there is or not a crisis sufficient to justify powers of this sort, I do not believe there is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides, and that if there were, it would merely be a misunderstanding of the crisis.

Where the difference occurs is on the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I think that he put forward the most serious argument. He said that in wartime one had a single national objective, whereas in time of peace there was a party Government, and it is a different matter for a party to take these powers. That is one point which has not been answered, and which, I think, needs answering. I will try to answer it. If one looks at the history of Europe between the wars, one will find that it was in the democracies where Governments failed to play their parts that Fascism came to take its place. If there is a fear of the danger of totalitarianism, it is to be found in the Government refusing to face the crisis. The Government know the responsibility they have taken, and know that if they fail to take the burden, democracy will be in danger. It is with those words that I welcome the Third Reading of this Bill.

6.56 a.m.

Mr. Hogg

Without transgressing the Ruling you have given, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can take the hon. Member who has just sat down much farther along the line he pursued; but, I do think that we on this side of the House can say that the mere size of a crisis does not justify the assumption of extraordinary powers. We think that the ordinary Parliamentary machinery is the correct machinery for hammering out those differences which exist between organised opinion in the country. It is because this Bill supersedes the ordinary machinery that we object to it. The greater the crisis, the more one needs democracy, and I think the countries of Europe which failed did so because in the moment of crisis they had not sufficient faith in democratic parliamentary government.

I want to put this to the learned Attorney-General, and here again I shall try not to go beyond the bounds of what is legitimate. We on this side are entitled to receive from the Attorney-General courtesy and not attacks on our patriotism. We have, most of us, satisfied the only test of patriotism which bears examination. We have been prepared to die for our country if need be, and we are not prepared to take cheap sneers and insults of the kind which have been made. I leave the Attorney-General with these words. At the beginning of this discussion, the Prime Minister asked for a united effort, but the right hon. Gentleman is not likely to receive it so long as spokesmen for the Government speak in the terms used by the Attorney-General of England. That is all I want to say on that subject, and so far as the Bill is concerned, I think I have already stated sufficiently my reasons for voting against the Third Reading.

I propose to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill because I am not prepared to add powers to a Government which in my judgment has forfeited the confidence of the people. Secondly I am going to vote against it because I believe it has been demonstrated over the course of these discussions that most of its provisions are directed against the whole tradition of Parliamentary liberty as we know it. I am going to vote against it because its provisions are so wide and because of the absence of a definite assurance as to the purposes for which they are required. The very few meagre scraps of information which we have had as to these purposes, such as direction of labour and a differential rationing system, are so disquieting that even if they had stood alone, I should be prepared to fight against the Third Reading of any Measure based upon policies and purposes of that kind.

7.1 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

I do not propose to deal with what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said because he is only repeating what he has said on a number of occasions throughout this Debate—but there is a matter which has not been represented during the course of this Debate in spite of its length. I agree fully with what the Attorney-General said about this Measure being intended as a precaution in case of doubt, that if it should be necessary for the Government to take certain action, then they can take it with the clear knowledge that they can go through with it and not be held back by the courts.

This Government have been encouraging in industry the spread of general consultation and they have done so for one overwhelming reason, because they have seen from past experience that that does achieve far better results than the autocratic form of control in times past and with which Members of the Opposition are familiar. I believe in the same way that the people of this country voted a Socialist Government into power in order to extend the movement within industry for Socialism. I know that because I have taken special steps to study the ways and means by which industry has been encouraged to adopt Socialist methods.

Mr. Speaker

All this is not in the Bill. We must stick to the Bill.

Mr. Cooper

I fully accept your guidance, Sir; but I submit also that this Bill includes a Subsection referring to the productivity of industry and I am submitting, to the House that the productivity of industry has been enlarged very considerably by the use of Socialist methods. I am asking that this Government, in applying this Measure, shall use those methods which in industry have been so successful. We are all agreed that it is through increased productivity that the crisis will be rapidly overcome. I do not want to go into details which will not be appropriate at this stage but it has been shown that where such things as welfare, joint consultation wages and psychological incentives, and profit and responsibility-sharing have been used, they have shown to the worker that the management does intend to give the worker the opportunity to give everywhere his best effort. I believe that if the Government, in exercising the powers they will now have under this Measure, go to industry and present a sufficient number of examples which show that increased productivity can be obtained by these methods of Socialist organisation, industry will be prepared to follow the advice and lead which the Government can give them in that respect. Finally, I ask them, in particular, in connection with coal, will they be able to get a single ton more of coal by directing labour into the pits? They know quite well that will not be possible. Sending unwilling labour into the pits will not achieve the results they intend to achieve. Therefore, I ask finally, that they will give special attention to ensure that the coal industry which is now nationalised, and in respect of which they now have the opportunity, will use these very successful methods of running this organisation which have proved so successful in many other instances.

7.6 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen (Armagh)

I shall shortly be returning home to Northern Ireland to my constituency. The hon. Lady for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) left me under the impression during the course of her speech that the Members on the other side of the House were the only people to represent the working-classes. Eighty per cent. of my electorate are working-class people and they have returned-me to Parliament for the past 30 years. I understand that I must not talk about anything but what is in this Bill. My dilemma is that I see nothing in the Bill about Northern Ireland. I understand that this is an extension purely of the 1945 Act. I should like to draw the attention of the House to something which the then Home Secretary said with regard to Northern Ireland. I think it is appropriate. It is in HANSARD, Volume 414, col. 813–4. The then Home Secretary apologised to the House and these were his words: The Coalition Government … appear to have omitted to consult Northern Ireland.…I ought to have consulted Northern Ireland before this Bill was introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 813–814.] That was the Bill in 1945. I want to know if the Home Secretary is going to introduce an Amendment as he did then because he omitted to consult Northern Ireland, and I want to know why the Home Secretary made that mistake. He has again omitted to consult Northern Ireland and I want to know if he intends to introduce an Amendment in another place which will embrace Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, tell me if this Bill refers to Northern Ireland or not, because I cannot go any further with reference to it on the Motion for the Third Reading. Then I presume that it does apply to Northern Ireland.

If it does apply, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, referred to the speech of the Prime Minister in which he adumbrated some of the possibilities of action by the Government as a result of this Bill. For instance, he told us that there was to be a petrol reduction for commercial vehicles. That is a very serious thing for Northern Ireland. If that is going to be a result of the introduction of this Bill it will be very serious for us. Again, he said that the allowance for businessmen travelling abroad will be more strictly limited. If that is to be an effect of this Bill, and the Government are going to limit the expenses of Northern Ireland businessmen travelling all over the world, what is to happen to our export trade? The linen trade is concerned' with one of the highest export commodities which the Government possess. During the last six months I understand that there has been at least £9,000,000 worth exported. Yet the Government are going to curtail the expenses of gentlemen who go all over the world in order to sell these things. This Bill is most extraordinary, and it will curtail the business and exports of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker

It might save time if I were to remind the hon. and gallant Member that to some extent Northern Ireland is in the Bill. Northern Ireland, in the original Measure, has complete power to do what it likes about it. In a way, Northern Ireland has complete Home Rule in this matter.

Sir W. Allen

I am obliged to you for that information, Mr. Speaker. I would have expected the Leader of the House to know something about it. But he did not tell me that Northern Ireland has complete powers to do what it likes.

7.14 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen), who, at the great age of four score years, at a quarter past seven in the morning, and having been here all the night, makes a most excellent speech, and has with youthful enthusiasm caught out the learned Attorney-General and other hon. Gentlemen, a feat not to be exceeded by any of us. I feel rather wistful about Mr. Speaker's ruling that Northern Ireland can do what it likes about this. I would that Scotland could do the same, but that, I am afraid, is more than we can hope. The powers which this Bill gives to the Government are all too reminiscent of the powers taken by the two greatest blackguards in history—Hitler and Mussolini—for me to believe that there is anything good in the Bill. Those two gentlemen knew what they were going to do with their powers. On the other hand, the Government do not know what they are going to do with the powers in this Bill. There is only one thing that matters today, and this Bill should be applied to it. We are living hopelessly beyond our means and the Government are doing nothing to put it right. That is a very serious thing because the Government have the greatest opportunity of almost any Government in our history; but instead of taking advantage of it, they are pottering and tinkering with the present and dreaming about some starry future they know will never come about.

I hope sincerely a vote will be taken against the Third Reading and I hope everything possible will be done to prevent the Bill getting through to the Statute Book. A very wise man once said: "The eyes of the fool are in the ends of the earth," implying that people should look to the present and not to some distant future. Yet that is what the Government are doing. They are taking immense powers under this iniquitous Bill without evidence of their having any purpose for so doing.

7.16 a.m.

Major Peter Roberts

I have listened to most of the speeches throughout the various stages of this Bill in the past four or five days and I want to draw the attention of the House to one point which, if I agreed with everything else in the Bill, would make me vote against it. Paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says: in a manner best calculated. By whom? By His Majesty's Ministers. And how are they to calculate? By their political opinions. Shall we in this House put our trust in the political opinions of His Majesty's Ministers? That alone would make me vote against this Bill, because, frankly and sincerely, I do not trust the political opinions of His Majesty's Ministers of this Government. I do not trust the political opinion, for instance, of the Minister of Health. We have heard too much of his class hatreds in the last few years to put any trust in him. I do not put any trust in the political opinion of the Minister of Food. I have heard too much about there being no food crisis this winter. Above all, I do not put trust in the political opinions of the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Speaker

Political opinions do not seem to come into the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might well make a general statement but to go right through the list of Ministers would be out of Order.

Major Roberts

I was proposing to go down the whole list. It is only by the political opinions of the Ministers that they can introduce any rules or orders under paragraph (c). For that reason I propose to vote against the Third Reading.

7.19 a.m.

Mr. Paget

This Bill has been attacked by Members opposite in the name of liberty. It is in good company. Every great Bill of Socialist reform ever introduced has been attacked by Members of the party opposite in the name of liberty. The Bill preventing women dragging coal trucks, the Bill which prevented children of nine working in factories, the Education Act——

Mr. Speaker

These are not in this Bill.

Mr. Paget

I was only giving examples—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were wrong examples."]—There have been other Bills which Members opposite attacked in the name of liberty. It is all a question of liberty for whom, to do what. That is the question which is one to consider upon these occasions. Liberty of one man to oppress another. We talk about economic freedom. There was not much economic freedom for the men who were subject to sentence of dismissal with the dole and the means test.

Mr. Speaker

This is very interesting but has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Paget

I am only saying this. We on this side support this Bill because we believe that it is the means of providing the greatest possible liberty for the individual. That is why we believe in Socialism as an instrument which is going to provide the greatest possible liberty for the individual, liberty which was previously only enjoyed by those who could afford it—the economic liberty of private means.

7.21 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

To believe, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) appears to believe, that it is in the interests of liberty to take legislative power away from the elected representatives of the people and hand that power over to the Executive, argues a paradoxically of mind. I shall not attempt to follow him, but to say that a Measure, which is commended to the House by the Government as an emergency Measure and which does take away power from the elected representatives, is a measure for increasing liberty is not only delightfully paradoxical, but has caused a certain amount of disquiet to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench.

The fundamental fallacy behind the arguments from the other side of the House, and in particular behind the arguments of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), who normally is very clear and intellectually honest, is that it appears to be assumed that one is strengthening the capacity of this country to face the difficulties of the time by taking power away from the House of Commons and giving it to the Executive. That assumption runs wholly contrary to the whole experience of English history. This country's capacity to survive through all the changes and chances of our dangerous history has been due to the mixture, on the one hand, of the power of the Executive, and, on the other, the power of the elected representatives of the people. I do not think it can be taken for granted that one is strengthening the power of the country to get through its difficulties by weakening the House of Commons. That is flying against all experience.

It is useless to cite against that the peculiar situation of war, during which, for physical reasons, it may be impossible for the House to meet for any length of time, and the physical communications on which the Government rely may be destroyed by enemy action. Short of that, the country seems to me much more likely to survive if we have a proper co-operation between Executive and Legislature, and not an attempt by one to steal the functions of the other. The arguments for this Bill that the Government must not be interfered with by the courts, nor its actions interrupted by the House of Commons, are surely the classic examples of tyranny in all ages. All Governments seem prone to think that if only they have complete power, if only they can exclude the interference of others, everything will be perfectly managed and run.

I think the Government have been very foolish in pushing this Bill through as they have done, at an excessive speed, without a chance of its having proper consideration between each stage; which has made proper consideration and proper amendment, if not impossible, extremely difficult. If hon. Members think that a major constitutional Measure is best discussed in the middle of the night, I do not agree with them. There is no reason whatever, other than the negligence of His Majesty's Government, why this Bill could not have been introduced three weeks ago, and discussed with leisure and decent care and sufficient time through the last three weeks.

I believe the Government have made this Bill a final mistake in rejecting not only the co-operation of the House of Commons, but the co-operation of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has referred to the Prime Minister's two appeals for unity. Those two appeals cannot have the slightest success when they are combined with the desire to compel, to order, and, if necessary, to imprison. It is impossible at the same time—surely, all human experience teaches this—to get wholehearted, cooperation from people while saying to them at the same time, "If you do not give that co-operation, we shall prosecute you in the courts under emergency regulations, and send you to prison." You cannot mix the two. The Government have chosen the path of compulsion. Theirs is the responsibility, and if their effort and the nation's effort therefore fail, it will be their fault.

7.28 a.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby (Rutland and Stamford)

I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments, because I have not spoken on the Measure yet. I view the Third Reading of this Measure with considerable regret. I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the Government must regret it, too, because this Bill is really a confession of failure. It is evidence that Socialist planning, unfortunately, does not work without extra-Parliamentary powers and a considerable measure of compulsion. I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and many Socialists in private life, do believe with all sincerity—or did believe—that it is possible to abolish the profit motive or reward from economic life, and to work economic life without compulsion or punishment—to work it by service to the State. Unfortunately, we have to recognise today that not one of the plans, not one of the targets set by the Government, has been attained; and now we have to go forward with a Measure like this, so as to make their economic planning work. I am afraid that in the degree in which they have failed to get a response from the country, we have the corresponding degree of compulsion through the medium of this Bill.

If I may state one or two of my own objections to this particular Measure, I would say that the Lord President, in one of his speeches in the early morning, said he would have thought that any public-spirited, patriotic man would have agreed what is in the interests of the community. I think that that is a false assumption. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman did not rely upon taking with him all his supporters in that remark. I have found among many members of my own party, particularly if we come from different parts of the country, that it is almost impossible to agree what is in the interests of the community as a whole. It is very easy to say what is in one's immediate material self-interest. It is also fairly easy for the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) to say what is in the immediate interest of any one section of the community, of one's own business or trade union; but it is extremely difficult in time of peace for anyone categorically to state what is in the general interest of the community as a whole.

I have myself long held that the most any Government can hope to do is to hold a fair balance between the various conflicting interests of individuals and sections throughout the State. I, do not know how far I carry hon. Members opposite with me on that. I will go so far as to admit that in time of war there is a common interest of everyone in the country—there is the interest of survival. We are all agreed upon that. We are all with the Government to that end, and in my view it is justifiable to give powers to a Government with a common objective agreed upon by all parties in time of war which it is not justifiable to do in time of peace. I will go further and say that everyone has a common interest in survival and the avoidance of starvation. I say that it is pure effrontery for the Member for East Coventry or for any other Member on the Government side to think that they alone know what is the general interest of the community at any one time.

May I come to my second objection to this Bill? Even assuming that we are all agreed on what is the general interest of the community, which I do not accept, but even assuming that we do, I think that one of the most pernicious doctrines in this world, and one which has probably caused more harm and suffering than anything else, is that the end justifies the means, and that provided you have an end which you think good, or in the interests of the community as a whole, you are entitled to take any methods or means, violent, criminal, or whatever it may be, to reach that end. I myself believe that there are certain fundamental principles which you cannot infringe or violate without doing harm to the community as a whole. There are certain values which we all hold in common—freedom of labour, right of trial, rights of property, freedom of speech, and so on. I believe that unless you hold those things sacrosanct, you cannot have any state of democratic society.

If I may take up the speech the hon. Member for East Coventry, I think his argument is wholly wrong when he says that you can go forward in peace and just take this liberty so as to maintain another. You have your plan, you have what you say is in the general interest of the community, but when things go wrong the next time, it is not one liberty but two liberties which may have to be taken to reach that end. I have already been speaking too long at this late hour. May I end by giving not mere words of my own, but a quotation from the words of Pitt: Interest is the plea for every infringement of human liberty.

7.35 a.m.

Mr. Blackburn

I shall speak for only a very short time and make some very short points. The first is this. I think it should be said in fairness that the man who has piloted this Bill through the House of Commons has been primarily the Lord President. We all know that the Lord President has been through a grave illness and he has been up all night. I think that in all quarters of the House we should pay tribute to the fact that the man, whatever views we may take about it, who introduced the Bill has attended to it throughout the whole proceedings. That does seem to me to be a fair remark to make at the beginning.

This Bill has been brought forward very largely as a crisis Bill. I do not want to say anything more on the subject of whether or not the arguments and representations about the Bill made by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Cross-man), and those who agree with him, or by other hon. Members, are right. I think that argument has been beaten to death. It is for the people to read this Debate and decide on the merits; and I am quite sure that most of the people who read it will decide on the merits of the case. Whatever view anybody takes of this Bill, it is, a fact that we are going away for ten weeks. Everybody must work to see that in this crisis, we do everything we can to get out of it and make the maximum use of the people now. That seems to me the essential fact we should extract from the Third Reading.

The next point I want to make is a fundamental one, which has been a constant thread of argument running through the Debate since Friday, and all through the night. It is whether the answer to the crisis is to give complete power to the Executive and for Parliament to abandon its right to examine every piece of legislation on the Floor of the House. I disagree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts), whose speech really horrified me. The issue is not whether the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are people in whom I or he or anybody else has confidence. That is not the issue, it never has been the issue, and has not been made the issue by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), or I would not have agreed with him, or by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).

I do not agree that in time of peace the Government should be given these powers and I never would agree in any circumstances that any Government should have these powers. I say that any Member who does will eventually regret it, when he has had time to think it over. I have no desire to be arrogant. I am only trying to be sincere. I have been up all night, and I am only trying to be sincere. Most of the Members on this side are trade unionists. On trade union questions they very rapidly say to me that they know everything about trade unionism, and I should be quiet. I have been trained as a lawyer. I have not the great position of some Members, but I have given ten to fifteen years of my life to studying law, and I believe the gravity of this issue can only be apparent to those who have loved the law and the rule of law and the greatness of British justice, which makes the name of the British Commonwealth and Empire resound throughout the world. It has been continuing since Magna Charta, in 1216.

Mr. S. Silverman


Mr. Blackburn

I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is my senior. And it was laid down by the aristocracy because they were Englishmen and had the spirit of liberty in them, which is in everybody in this country, working men, middle class or aristocrats, which is fundamental to the British character—that we can move on no man, enter on his land, or seize his property, save by the lawful judgment of his peers.

There is the central principle of English liberty—that one will not give totalitarian powers to the Executive. Only the judges of this country, for whom we have so much respect, administer the powers. If it could be established by an independent tribunal that a factory is sabotaging the national effort, then I am in favour of the use of the courts. I think that hon. Members ought to be against anything which is contrary to the essential principle in British life that one should not give anybody the right to direct human beings, or sweeping powers over property, unless there is some check of some kind through the courts. The purpose of this Bill is to shut the law courts which have put the learned Attorney-General into the position in which he now is on the Government Front Bench. I am certain the view which I am putting forward will be accepted by independent people in the law; I am willing to be proven right or wrong, but I have stated the central principle, on which there is no question. We have a respect for the rule of law, and a respect for the idea that independent people, namely, judges of the High Court, and others, will be finally responsible for taking the decision in any matter concerning the validity of the property of His Majesty's subjects.

7.42 a.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

I find myself in full agreement with the hon. Member opposite. During peace time the powers of the Executive should not increase. The Attorney-General drew a distinction between the liberty of the individual and the liberty of the community. He said it was admitted that the liberty of the individual was being curtailed, but he added that the liberty of the community was increasing I noted the words that, while he had the greatest respect for the life and liberty of the individual, the life and liberty of the community was something greater still. There is, surely, a fundamental difference in doctrine here. The democratic view is that the liberty of the State is precisely the sum of the life and liberty of the individuals in that State. The totalitarian view is that the State is something above the individual. That is the fundamental difference between the two doctrines. I have noted the words of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he said that this country can contribute more to the salvation of the world than any other. But what is it that this country has contributed to the salvation of the world in the past? What is it for which the world looks to this country? Surely, the answer is simple. It is the love of liberty and the rule of law. If we are to legislate to curtail legislation, if we are to legislate to reduce liberty at this time, surely we are doing something that cannot possibly contribute to the salvation of the world.

The Lord President claimed that the object of this Bill was to fill up the gap. We have already been dealing with the "Battle of the Gap" so far as foreign exchange is concerned—that is the "Dalton Gap." Here we have "Morrison's Gap," and that particular gap is covered by Clause 1 (1, c) of the Bill, which has been debated at such great length in the House. The point here is that the Government are taking the fullest possible powers—everything, in fact except the suspension of Habeas Corpus, over which it so happens that the Lord President has some qualms. The Government claim that they are ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use. The Government are not going to ensure that. Has any Government ever ensured that the whole resources of any community were used for the best interests of the community? The Government are trying to do something here that is utterly impossible and in trying to do that they will fall down utterly.

It is not only two or three Ministers on the Front Bench who are to try to dictate what is in the best interests of the country, because each individual case must be considered at a great distance from here, and it must be decided how those particular resources are to be used in the best interests of the country. There must be an inquiry into the resources of each single person by people who, in 99 cases out of 100, are less qualified to judge how these resources can be best used in the interests of the country than the men trained to use them. We are talking about the "whole resources," and those, of course, comprise the means of production and also skill which has to be directed here today.

It comprises also the will to work, and it is that which no Government can ever ensure will be used in the best interests of the community—except in two ways. The first is by inspiration and the second is by compulsion. Over the two years in which this Government have been in power, have there been any signs that this Government are going to inspire people to do their best in this country and to get the best out of this country? I think the answer is, "No." Therefore, there is only one means left by which they can attain the object they have set for themselves. That is fundamental. Members on this side of the House, and, I believe, some on the other side, have the greatest anxiety about this Bill and will go into the Lobby against it.

7.49 a.m.

Mr. Pitman

I am sorry to speak at this hour, but I did very much appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). It was an able and constructive speech and I sensed that he was carrying a lot of Members behind him in that spirit of early morning friendliness in which you, Mr. Speaker,—arising from your couch, I suspect from your early remarks—wished us to end the morning. If you remember, Sir, there were two points on which he thought the Bill was dividing the two sides of the House, first, the distinction between war and peace, and secondly, the question, which we on this side also admit, that this crisis is a grave one equivalent to the worst part of the war. I give him both these points, and also that he was sincerely trying to find, and successfully, to build a bridge between us. But I think he overlooked two important points. The first one was covered in a leading article in yesterday's "Times" which pointed out that in war the enemy, at that time at any rate, had the initiative. There was then an element of surprise, and we needed to act instantly, whereas this particular crisis is more like a game of chess in which the play is and may be studied. I agree with "The Times" that in this crisis, unlike the war, the initiative is, or at any rate, ought to be with the Government. In this first point there is therefore an important difference.

Secondly, there is the consideration that even in war, it was a potential tyranny and one which we all of us here disliked. In war it was a potential tyranny, and the weapons were taken only regretfully and were locked up in the cupboard. Our feeling is that this is one of the main points of division between us: that we feel that these new weapons are not only not taken regretfully and not locked up, but they are being brandished, and with joy in the swish of the air through which they pass. I cannot do better than my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in giving reasons for our fundamental dislike. Never, in peace, will we on this side, be anything but revolted at the idea of authorising these tyrannical powers. However, the hon. Member for East Coventry has shown us a good bridge, and I think we can part and go home this morning feeling that, at any rate, there are a large number of Members on the other side who sincerely have no desire to brandish these weapons and who have considerable uneasiness at the back of their minds at having these powers, even in the cupboard.

This is a deserved compliment to them, and it is also a compliment to us because, in this uncertain world, we might find ourselves having to form a Government from this side and, at any rate, he seems happy that we in our turn will not be tempted to keep these weapons in the cupboard and may not repeal them straight away. I go home happy. At least, I have expressed all my dislikes. One of the things I liked most was the Statement of the hon. Member which carried conviction round him, that there was no cleavage between him and other Members of his party and particularly those Members on the Front Bench who have been listed earlier this morning by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). At any rate that means, I think, that we can now look forward to some action. On our side of the House, we have felt that one of the troubles has been that action has been missing and that it has been missing because of internal division over the line of action. I am happy to hear that there is no wedge of dissension. Though I have strong conviction against the Bill, I shall go home feeling that at any rate the country is now capable of taking united action.

7.55 a.m.

Mr. C. Davies

I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in his last words, for I am sure that, so far as the spirit of the country is concerned, that can never be in doubt. What every one of us is hoping for is that we can cooperate in those things which will benefit the nation. We have expressed our views, and I have made it plain that I do not think that this Bill helps in any way. In a few moments we shall have parted with this Bill one way or the other. I have already spoken on the Second Reading, and again in the Committee stage. Therefore, I do not think it would be right or proper for me to detain the House by going over the ground again.

There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and myself regarding the full effect of the Bill. He himself admits that there are vast, wide, extensive powers already possessed by the Government, and that they are being possessed by the Government for another three years untouched, and with all the full strength which they contained when the Act was passed in 1945. It is admitted that the purpose of this Bill is to expand, to a certain extent, at any rate, the powers given by that Act. It is on that very ground that we differ. The extent is so wide that we feel that there is no true limit.

Unfortunately, this is obviously panic legislation, and panic legislation was never progress. Why it should have been left to this very last minute to bring forward legislation, I do not know. Surely, the Government could have seen this economic crisis looming up over a long period. Surely, it was present in their minds when they issued those two White Papers in February. Surely, all this was in their minds when they could see no improvement coming in the following months of March, April and May. Why was it left to the very last moments of this very long Session of Parliament to introduce this highly controversial Measure? It is to that extent a confession of their own failure in administration. Nothing condemns them so much as the fact that we have been allowed to drift so far into this position without having any policy outlined or any statement given to us by the Government, or being told anything definite about what the Government proposed to do. We have merely been asked again to give them these extra powers which contain this very dangerous element of the direction of people in this country—it may be individually, it may be in classes. It is for these reasons that I utter my final protest against the Bill.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. H. Macmillam

I think that at the end of these long Debates there is one of our fellow Members who has our universal sympathy. I refer to the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. It must add to his anxieties when the learned Attorney-General rises, because he must know that several hours are put on to any discussion and an element of acrimony introduced just at a time when the Patronage Secretary hopes we shall pass the final stage in a more quiet mood. I would also like to say how much I and my right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate the skill and good humour and the high Parliamentary gifts with which the Lord President of the Council, the Leader of the House, conducted this Debate. I would always expect from him the give-and-take in Debate, and we hope our work has not put too heavy a strain on him tonight.

I feel it is right that a final speech should be made from these benches. I will not detain the House for more than a few sentences. I will simply give once more the reasons why we propose to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. We had hoped, I am bound to say, that Amendments might have been accepted in the course of these proceedings which would have allowed us to take a different view of this Measure. We had every reason at some earlier stage to hope such Amendments would be agreeable to Ministers: Amendments which would have cleared up for ever the great mystery of the Bill, the great controversy as to whether it is an important Bill with a lot in it or whether it is a very unimportant Bill which merely clears up obscure legal doubts. Even at Third Reading it is a great mystery what is in this Bill. It was not even known to what part of His Majesty's Dominions it applied until you, Mr. Speaker, resolved that great difficulty which no responsible Minister appeared able to do.

There have been two views about this Measure all through. First, that it is a small legal necessity to clear up some ambiguity which some keen lawyer in a public office found and thought might be troublesome to a Minister if action in the courts set aside an Order. The second view is that this is a symbol of the march, triumphant and powerful, of party doctrine which you could call Socialism, National Socialism, Nazism or whatever you like. To those who hold the latter view, the Bill is a great new power, a new weapon with which the Executive is to be armed. We reach the last stage of the Measure without having cleared up the mystery.

The degree of happiness I share with my hon. Friend behind me, arises from the fact that I do not think the Ministers who at present keep some fleeting control over the Government are likely to prove great tyrants. I think they hold reasonable views; many of them have wide experience. They are too sensible to misuse these powers. I am not sure about some of those who may succeed them, who may stir them on, and perhaps push them out. With these doubts we cannot really allow this Bill from our point of view, to pass without voting against it.

I would like to pay my tribute—I think it is genuinely felt, to the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) who has with rare' courage and great straightforwardness, never wavered from the views he expressed in this matter. I am glad that on Third Reading he restated his position. He said he did not want to drive a wedge—and I would be the last to drive one—between himself and his leaders. I have found it difficult to follow his migrations from one part of the House to another—perhaps they are symbolic—from above the Gangway to below the Gangway, sometimes just behind the Minister and so forth. I feel he put his views forward and repeated them with absolute sincerity and clarity as he always does. I do not agree with his view that we are in a position as serious as we were in during the war in the period of 1940. I certainly do not feel it is so serious, but perhaps one takes a very personal view of such matters. I do not know whether the hon. Member walked out of his office as I did in 1940, but I must say I go home now in a far better spirit than in those anxious days. I really do not compare the situation which this country is or is likely to be in with the anxieties which pressed on every single household then, with fathers, brothers and sisters, everyone risking their lives and limbs. There is no comparison. Nor do I believe that we are up against difficulties such as those in 1940. We only need courage and a renewal of our faith to make a big inroad into the path of progress.

There is a serious and important difference between the Acts of 1939 and 1940 and this Bill. The Act of 1939 contained, of course, the essence of all the regulations which had been worked out beforehand for a year or two before in the public departments. They dealt with shipping, with lights, with an enormous variety of regulations which had to come

into force immediately after the declaration of war. The trouble with this Bill is that no one knows what the Government are going to do. There is no comparison with the whole mass of war regulations carefully prepared during the period beforehand. I think this is a point of complete difference in the present situation. I say frankly I would have preferred this matter to have been cleared up with general approval. If there was some legal doubt as to the powers the Government wanted to exercise, we could have amended them, but so long as there is this abiguity and uncertainty as to what this Bill can do we feel it is our duty to make one last protest, and divide against the Third Reading.

8.8 a.m.

The Attorney-General

May I with the leave of the House speak briefly on three matters? The Lord President of the Council would have wished, if he had known that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was going to speak, to apologise to the House for his absence. He had another public engagement starting very early, and, as hon. Members know, he has been present all night. Dealing with the point of the hon. Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) about the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, this Bill and the Acts apply to Northern Ireland. Some of the regulations but not all of them, like Regulation 55, which deals with control of industry. Regulation 58, dealing with the direction of labour, and Regulation 78, dealing with acquisition of shares, do apply, subject to overriding powers to the Northern Ireland Legislature. May I finally say this personal word which I do not think will affect the course of the Bill. I do not possess a motor yacht. I wish I did.

Question put: "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 63.

Division No. 382.] AYES. [8.9 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Beswick, F. Buchanan, G.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Bing, G. H C Burden, T. W.
Alexander, Rt Hon A. V. Binns, J. Burke, W. A.
Allan, A. C. (Bosworth) Blenkinsop, A. Callaghan, James
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Boardman, H. Carmichael, James
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Champion, A. J.
Attewell, H. C. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Chetwynd, G R.
Austin, H. Lewis Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Collins, V. J.
Barton, C. Brook, D. (Halifax) Colman, Miss G. M.
Bechervaise, A E. Bruce, Major D. W. T. Comyns, Dr. L.
Cook, T. F. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Sargood, R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Scollan, T.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W) Levy, B. W. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Corlett, Dr. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Cove, W. G. Logan, D. G. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Crossman, R. H. S. Longden, F. Silverman, J (Erdington)
Daines, P. McAllister, G. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) McGhee, H. G. Simmons, C. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McKay, J (Wallsend) Skeffington, A. M.
Davie Haydn (St Pancras, S. W.) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Deer, G. McLeavy, F. Smith. S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Delargy, H. J. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Diamond, J Macpherson, T. (Romford) Sorensen, R. W.
Debbie, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Dodds, N. N. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Sparks, J. A.
Driberg, T. E. N. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Stross, Dr. B.
Dumpleton, C. W. Mathers, G Stubbs, A. E.
Dye, S. Mellish, R. J. Swinglar, S.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Mikardo, Ian Symonds, A. L.
Fairhurst, F. Monslow, W. Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)
Fool, M. M. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Forman, J. C. Nally, W.
Gallacher, W. Neal, H (Claycross) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Gibson, C. W. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Gilzean, A. Noel-Buxton, Lady Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Oliver, G. H. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Gordan Walker, P. C. Orbach, M. Tiffany, S
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Paget, R. T. Tolley, L.
Grierson, E. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Pargiter, G. A. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Parkin, B. T. Watkins, T. E.
Gunter, R. J. Paton, J. (Norwich) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Guy, W. H. Pearson, A. West, D. G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Peart, Thomas F. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hardy, E. A. Popplewell, E. Wilkes, L.
Herbison, Miss M. Price, M. Philips Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Hobson, C. R. Proctor, W. T. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Holman, P. Pryde, D. J. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
House, G. Pursey, Cmdr. H Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Hoy, J. Randall, H. E. Willis, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Ranger. J. Wills, Mrs. E. A
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, J. Wise, Major F. J
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Rees-Williams, D. R Yates, V. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reeves, J. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Reid, T. (Swindon) Zilliacus, K
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Keenan, W. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Mr. Hannan.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Reid, Rt Hon J. S C. (Hillhead)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Amory, D. Heathcoat Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Baldwin, A. E Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Smithers, Sir W.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H Haughton, S. G. Spearman, A. C. M.
Blackburn, A. R. Herbert, Sir A. P. Spence, H. R.
Bossom, A. C Hogg, Hon. Q. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P dd't'n, S.)
Byers, Frank Linstead, H. N. Turton, R. H.
Carson, E. Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Wadsworth, G.
Challen, C. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Clarke, Col R. S. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E Maitland, Comdr. J W. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Cuthbert, W. N. Manningham-Buller, R. E Williams, C. (Torquay)
Davidson, Viscountess Marlowe, A. A. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Da la Bère, R. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) York, C
Drayson, G. B. Nicholson, G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Peto, Brig C. H. M TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fox, Sir G. Pitman, I. J. Major Ramsay and
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.