§ 3.52 p.m.
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)I beg to move.
ThatIn moving this Motion I would explain that it gives effect to the proposals of the Government in regard to Private Members' facilities during the present Session. Motions of this character tend to be complicated, but this one sets out the arrangements very clearly and for this we are indebted to the authorities of the House.
- (1) save as provided in paragraphs (2), (3) and (6) of this Order Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session;
- (2) Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 1st December, 26th January, 9th and 23rd February, 9th March and 6th April;
- (3) on and after Friday 20th April Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be arranged on the Order Paper in the following order:—Consideration of Lords Amendments, Third Readings, Considerations of Report not already entered upon, adjourned Proceedings on Consideration, Bills in progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings; and Bills so arranged shall have precedence over Government Business on that Friday and the following Fridays, namely, 4th May, 8th and 22nd June;
- (4) the ballot for unofficial Members' Bills shall be held on Thursday 16th November under arrangements to he made by Mr. Speaker, and the Bills shall be introduced at the commencement of Public Business on Friday 17th November;
- (5) for the remainder of the Session no Notices of Motions for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall be set down;
- (6) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 24th November, 8th December, 2nd and 16th February, 2nd and 16th March, 13th and 27th April, and 1st and 15th June; and no Notices of Motions shall be handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (7) of this Order; and
- (7) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall be held
953 after Questions on the following Wednesdays, namely, 15th and 22nd November, 24th and 31st January, 14th and 28th February, 4th and 11th April, and 9th and 30th May. In restoring Private Members' time we have adopted the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure of 1946 in favour of allocating 20 Fridays, Motions and Bills being taken on alternate Fridays. This proposal has the merit of spreading Private Members' opportunities over a longer period of the Session and does not militate against Private Members' Bills being passed and sent to another place with a chance of their reaching the Statute Book before the end of the Session. I think the House will feel that it was desirable for us to give due notice of our intentions so that hon. Members had an opportunity to prepare themselves.
The House will wish me briefly to review the proposed arrangements which are set out in the various paragraphs of the Motion. In the first place, there will be 10 Fridays for Bills, the first six for Second Readings, beginning on Friday, 1st December, and the last four of the Bill Fridays will be for final stages. The number of Bills which the House will consider, of course, depends on the nature of the Measures brought forward and their reception by the House. On the last four Bill Fridays, the Bills in the most advanced stage will be taken first, and the actual order set out in paragraph (3) is a repetition of Standing Order No. 5.
Secondly, the ballot for Private Members' Bills will take place under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will sign their names on the list which will be placed in the No Lobby on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, 14th and 15th November. The draw will take place in a Committee room upstairs and the result made known on a printed list which will be obtainable from the Vote Office. Hon. Members who are successful will present their Bills when the House meets at 11 a.m. on Friday. 17th November.
954 Thirdly, there will be 10 Fridays for Private Members' Motions, the first being Friday, 24th November. The ballot for precedence of Motions on this day will be taken after Questions in the House on Wednesday, 15th November, and thereafter periodical ballots will be held in the House. This method is desirable in order that Motions may be fresh and topical—that is to say, that the latest practicable time should be fixed for the ballot before the Motion is actually debated in the House, consistently with hon. Members having proper notice of the Motion coming forward and its terms.
We have very carefully considered the representations recently made by hon. Members in regard to Bills presented under the so-called Ten Minutes Rule procedure, but we feel that this method has disadvantages and that it would be more to the advantage of hon. Members to present Bills in the ordinary way after the ballot for Bills has been held. That is to say, we are not proposing in any way to interfere with the right of hon. Members to present Bills; and of course, the so-called Ten Minutes Rule Motion is a Motion to permit Members to present a Bill. We are proposing that Members should be perfectly free to present Bills at any time after that date. The Bills would secure a First Reading automatically. They would be printed, and might well find an opportunity for debate on the Second Reading on one of the Fridays to be set apart for Private Members' Bills. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) pointed out on 1st November that this was a much wider privilege than the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. That, of course, is clearly the case.
There is an advantage in getting the Bills of hon. Members presented and printed, and this we have provided for in the interests of Private Members. With the so-called Ten Minutes Rule procedure, hon. Members may not succeed in persuading the House to allow a Bill to be brought in, and it would not he printed. While hon. Members may have ventilated their proposal, time will have been occupied to no purpose in those circumstances, and perhaps the House will have been inconvenienced by an encroachment upon the time set apart for an important Debate.
The House will welcome the fact that the Government have been able this Ses- 955 sion to restore Private Members' facilities and to set apart about the same number of days for their Bills and Motions as was customary before the war. If this Motion, which I commend to the House, is accepted, Private Members will be able to exercise their own initiative in proposing Motions and promoting legislation. On the whole the Government have taken the general views of the House into full consideration, and I venture to commend the Motion to the favourable consideration of the House.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)I hope that I shall be as brief in replying as the right hon. Gentleman was in moving the Motion. Everybody in the House, I think, will welcome the Motion, although I do not think that I can agree to the phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Government are restoring time to Private Members. That is not really the case. What has happened is that the Government have at last deferred to the wishes of the House expressed repeatedly since the Report of the Select Committee in 1946 and the Government are abandoning their use of Private Members' time, because this time—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was stolen."] No, it was not stolen. This time was willingly surrendered to the Executive at the beginning of the war, in view of the circumstances of the war, on the understanding that the Government should give up their claim as soon as possible after the war. It is just as well to put it in the right perspective.
The House itself is asserting its own rights. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think I am cavilling at his action, but I think that he was slightly inaccurate in the way he put it. He said that Private Members will now have the privilege of introducing Bills. It is not a privilege—it is an inherent right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and for the benefit of all Governments that should be made quite clear now that the surrender has been made, the war being well over. The only point at issue which will arise is that covered by the Amendment which is on the Paper to leave out paragraph (5); therefore, I say nothing about that. I understood, however, that the original right of presentation of Bills at the Table and having them printed is now to 956 re-emerge. That is extremely satisfactory and everybody will welcome it, whatever they have to say about the other issue.
The only question which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon—and while I would not press it on this occasion, I keep open the rights of any Private Member, obviously, in so far as I can do it for them in future—is the proposal, which I had thought was universally acceptable, made by the Select Committee, that there should be one ballot for Bills and Motions—not for the subject of either of them, but for the selection of days—so that hon. Members, some of whom are legislatively-minded and some of whom are more Motion-minded—if there are such phrases—could decide which line they wanted to take.
Now, I understand, there are to be separate ballots, one for all Bills, and then the fortnightly ballot for Motions. We recommended the other course, and I think that on consideration hon. Members will probably agree with the Select Committee; we went into the matter very carefully, as hon. Members who have read the Report will know. We thought it would be a better idea that the whole question concerning what one hon. Member who was lucky wanted to do—to legislate or to move Motions—should be decided at one time. It was not a question of settling then the subject of the Motion; that, of course, was provided for to be dealt with nearer to the date; it was merely the selection of what should be done.
The right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon that, and his Motion is drawn up in the other, and, possibly, more like the older, form. I do not press the matter today, but I hope that if another opportunity arises in another year the question may be looked at again, because I think that that is the best way out of it. This is really only an inquiry; possibly the right hon. Gentleman overlooked that side of our Report altogether. Having said that, I am sure that everybody in the House is delighted to see this Motion put upon the Order Paper. Not only have we returned to this House, which is our proper Chamber, but we are gradually getting back to some of the peace-time usages, and perhaps it is one more mark that the war is receding into the distance.
§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)Referring to the right of hon. Members to introduce Bills and have them printed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the next stage in a Bill of that sort would be the chance of getting a Second Reading on one of the last four Fridays. In the old days hon. Members could let a Bill go forward in the ordinary way and it was carried if no Member cried out "object". I imagine that procedure will obtain at the option of the hon. Member introducing the Bill?
§ Mr. MorrisonI should think so, but if the hon. Member liked to put it down to come up at 10 o'clock, or whatever the hour may be, he could take his chance and if no one said "object" it would get a Second Reading and go forward. That right is not prejudiced. The other matter relating to Fridays depends on the competition in the queue as to the Bills to be selected.
§ 4.1 p.m.
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out paragraph (5).
I hope I can emulate the two hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, in brevity at least. I would not maintain that this is a matter of very great importance and it is quite true, as the Lord President said, that we are in any case reviving the right of unofficial Members to introduce Bills without leave asked. That is highly satisfactory, but I think there are arguments in favour of the other method also.
There are, first, the obvious arguments from usage, that by usage—which would presumably not have been interrupted but for the war—unofficial Members have had this right and, secondly, there is really a distinction between the two kinds of procedure. In the words of Sir Gilbert Campion, in his introduction to procedure, this method is an
opportunity to a Member who may hope by a judicious explanation to turn into an unopposed Billwhat he is introducing, oron which, although he has not that hope, he may desire to make a demonstration";and the difference between this method and the other method is that under this method a Member may be sure he will get the attention of something like half the House, or more, whereas under the other method he cannot be sure he will get half a 958 dozen Members to read his Bill. Also, under this method a Member may be reasonably sure that some public attention will be drawn to the topic about which he wishes to legislate. Those seem to be the advantages and, with respect to anyone else who wishes to speak in support, that seems to be the whole case for this method.The case against it, if I may venture to put that also, seems to me to be no more than this; that upon—I think I am right in saying—it may be as many as two days a week but not more, 25 minutes or so of time would be taken from the main Debate. That seems to be the case against, and it is a case against from the point of view of the unofficial Member himself. It has always been my opinion that what are called Private Members' Rights, with capital letters, are less important to unofficial Members than their opportunities of speaking in main debates, and every time we take 25 minutes out of a main debate we shorten that opportunity.
That seems to me the whole case against this Amendment and that case could be met and more than met by returning to the eleven o'clock hour for the termination of our proceedings. Therefore, it seems to me that the case for is a good deal stronger than the case against.
§ 4.3 p.m.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)I beg to second the Amendment.
It did not seem quite clear from what the Lord President said whether the extra provision he has made that Bills may lie on the Table means that that part of the procedure which normally went with the Ten Minutes Rule procedure is provided for and we are left with the possibility still of hon. Members being able to introduce a Bill, have it printed and put at the end of the Order Paper and then, possibly, called at the end of the day if Government business is brought to an end at an early stage. If that is the case, that weakens the claim for the re-establishment of the Ten Minutes Rule, but I am not sure that that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
As hon. Members know, under the Ten Minutes Rule one spoke for a few minutes indicating the nature of the Bill, perhaps someone was called to object, and then 959 Mr. Speaker had the right, either to put the Question or to move the Adjournment. The Bill was then given publicity by the process, printed, and put at the end of the Order Paper. If Government business terminated on some day at five, six or seven o'clock, the Bill came up, and if the hon. Member was there and ready and had his friends there, it had a Second Reading stage. Sometimes only two or three minutes of time was needed if the Bill was called just before ten o'clock and the hon. Member merely rose in his place and the Bill was given a formal Second Reading. When that stage was got through the Bill could proceed. What I want from the right hon. Gentleman is whether that situation now subsists under his new promise about Bills being laid to be printed, or whether it does not, because, if it does not, we must press the Amendment on the Ten Minutes Rule. If that is the situation, all that remains is the ten minutes of advantage in prior publicity.
This suggestion to restore the Ten Minutes Rule has very respectable antecedents. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not restore the right. It scarcely wastes any time at all and, from what we see in the King's Speech, there is not going to be a very great deal of business for this House to consider in the next few gloomy winter months before we get to the sunny days when the Lord President can bask in the spacious atmosphere of the Festival of Britain. But we are going at such a pace now that there are three Second Readings for this week and by Saturday they will be out of the way. I do not know what is to come next week, unless it be a diet of poached salmon and beet sugar, but we are going so fast that there is really plenty of time to introduce this little reform.
I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in this regard. He accepted the rest of it and agreed to the restoration of Private Members' rights, with this one small exception. Why he could not complete the process and say that he had gone back to being a traditionalist, I do not know. If he wants assistance in making up his mind, may I give the words of the Prime Minister, who said on 29th November, 1939: 960
Will the introduction of a Bill by Members either under the Ten-Minute Rule or by the ordinary way of introducing a Bill really do anything to hamper the proper carrying on of the war?For war, we might substitute "Socialism."I suggest nothing of the sort. I believe it is an extremely useful thing that legislative proposals should be brought before this House quickly and with certainty.…This was said by the present Prime Minister to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. He went on to say:I think it is a desirable thing. There is no reason to think it will unduly impinge on the time of Government business. … We must have from the Prime Minister some definite reason why it would be wrong to have a Bill introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule. It might be a Bill which the House desired to pass."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1939; Vol. 355, c. 98–9.]I join with my hon. Friend in pressing this matter and I wish the Prime Minister were here to note what he said in 1939.
§ 4.10 p.m.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)However other people may feel about this, I think it would be ungracious for the House not to express its appreciation of the fact that the Government have indeed given up a claim on the time of the House, which the House could not have refused to give if the Government had insisted on retaining it. [Interruption.] I did say, however, "other people may feel." I myself feel that when one gets something back from somebody that one wanted, it is not very ungracious to say: "Thank you." That, however, is a matter of individual opinion, in which each of us will follow his own standards.
It seems to me we are doing very much better than if we had merely gone back to the pre-war practice. The proposals in the Report of the Select Committee, which were unanimous, make a very much better use of the time of Private Members under the Rules than was possible under the old practices, so that we are not recovering something we had before and which we had lost, but we are adding something to the effectiveness of the time available for Private Members.
At the same time, I want to repeat what I said during the last debate, that I myself regret and feel some disappointment that the Government could not have gone the whole way and accepted the 961 whole Report. They do not have very much further to go, and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who moved the Amendment, amply demonstrated that the time lost to the Government by restoring this particular practice was so very small, and could so very easily be made up that it affords not a very adequate reason for withholding it when the Government's proposals on the main Report have gone so far. I am disappointed about that, and if my right hon. Friend could reconsider it even at this late stage, I should be delighted.
At the same time, the Government having gone so far—I do not know whether it is open to me to offer any advice to hon. Members opposite—I suggest that this is not an occasion on which to divide the House. If the House were divided about this subject, one would like to see it divided not according to parties, and without the party Whips laid on, because it is purely a Private Members' point and the Government are not closely connected with it. If there were to be a Division, one would prefer it that way. I still think, however, that on this occasion the Amendment ought not to be pressed to a Division. Next year we shall have to consider this matter again, and I hope in the meantime, in the light of the experience acquired under the Motion now before the House, the Government might be able to reconsider the matter and restore the whole of the rights of Private Members.
Before I sit down I should like to refer to a point made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I say this in defence of the Government. The noble Lord quoted to us a statement made at the beginning of the war by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Ten Minutes Rule being available even under war-time conditions. In order to be quite fair with the House, the noble Lord might have gone a little further with his quotation, and told us what reply the then Prime Minister gave to the point which my right hon. Friend made, because my recollection is that the Prime Minister did not make the concession demanded, and that my right hon. Friend and those of us who supported him on that occasion did not press the Government on the point. I hope that today the Government will not be pressed upon this point either.
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Roland Robinson (Blackpool, South)For once I will reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and say "Thank you" to the Government for returning some of the rights of Private Members' time. I think at the same time that it is only fair to say that if I were lending a man a pound and it came back, as I expected it to come back, I would say "Thank you." If I lent a pound to a man of doubtful standing, and it came back I should be very very grateful that it had come back. As the Government in my view is of doubtful standing, I am more than ever grateful that this privilege has returned.
I should like to support my hon. Friends in this Amendment. I have some experience of the Ten Minutes Rule. I was responsible for the Health Resorts and Water Places Act, 1936, which I introduced under the Rule. I had the backing of Members of all parties. Indeed, one of the names on my Bill was that of the Home Secretary, and he was able to help me with his party to get the Bill through. The real reason I succeeded was that I was able to tell a full House of Commons in the short space of six minutes what the motives were and what we were trying to do.
The result was that I was able to get the Second Reading through, also the Committee Stage on the nod and the Third Reading on the nod. I got the Bill carried to another place and it came back with Lords Amendments, which also went through on the nod. Within the space of one month I went to another place and heard the Royal Assent given to my Bill. That is the value of the Ten Minutes Rule. Should I not have had the opportunity of making a short speech of six minutes I never would have got than Bill through on the nod. I beg the Lord President to reconsider the matter.
§ 4.16 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)I have never known of any Government that has been particularly willing to grant Private Members' time. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to thank the Prime Minister or anyone else of any Government. I look at the matter very differently from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not regard it as the Government 963 having given us anything back. I consider that we have those rights, and that on this occasion the Government are not taking away as much from us as they have done in the past. I do not regard any reason why, because the Government are picking one of our pockets instead of the two of them, we should give them an official vote of thanks. It is all the more reason why we should knock them on their heads before they pick the other pocket. However, if I developed that much further I might be getting controversial.
I hope the House will insist, if it is at all possible, on securing the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. We have just had the best possible illustration that we could have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson), because that Bill conferred great benefits on the smaller health resorts and less important ones, and also on the most important of all, naturally, Torquay. Apart from that, I want to see it restored for this reason, which I think is a good one and which has not been given by way of illustration before. When Members have the power of using the Ten Minutes Rule they can bring in a Bill which deals with some particular topic. At the present time facing the House of Commons is the very difficult position on the matter of Questions on nationalised industries, and I hope that on some future occasions the Ten Minutes Rule procedure will be used for the purpose of enabling private Members to bring up points about the nationalised industries.
That idea, I think, is practical, and it is one which gets over the difficulty of not being able to do it at Question Time. I notice that this is received with considerable dislike by the Government, and I am therefore glad that I have been able to raise an entirely fresh point with regard to the Ten Minutes Rule; and one thoroughly disliked by the officially minded people sitting on the Government Bench. I hope that Private Members on all sides will welcome this as a strengthening of the claim that we should get this Ten Minutes Rule procedure so as to be able to strengthen our position, as back bench Members, against any Government in the future.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ Mr. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr)Until the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) made his contribution to this discussion, I had complete sympathy with the mover and seconder of the Amendment; but the hon. Member for Torquay, having now made it so clear that he is not particularly anxious to restore the rights of Private Members to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, but rather that he is concerned to use the Ten Minutes Rule procedure in order to embarrass the Government on every occasion, has already lost my support.
I am one who, right from the beginning, as long as I have been a Member of this House, has pressed the Lord President for the restoration of the rights of Private Members in this House. I should have been much happier if we had been accepting the whole of the Report of the Committee in this case; but it does not help us to go with hon. Gentlemen opposite when we find that those facilities are to be abused in the way in which the hon. Member for Torquay has suggested.
§ Mr. C. WilliamsI did not say they should be abused. What I did was to make a suggestion which might be considered on some suitable occasion—which obviously this is not—as to whether we could avoid what is now a very difficult position, as is acknowledged by back bench Members on all sides, of not allowing individual Private Members to ask any questions so far as nationalisation is concerned. I meant nothing against this Government or any Government. It is just a point of view.
§ Mr. PooleI agree. But the hon. Member was directing his remarks particularly to the nationalised industries, and surely it is an anomaly if, in order to make a point regarding nationalised industries, we are going to take advantage of the position, and introduce a Bill in order to make a speech against the nationalised industries. I confess that, with the views that I hold about road transport and C licensed vehicles, it would be a great temptation to me to use the Ten Minutes Rule procedure to introduce a Bill to bring road transport on to the lines on which I think it ought to go. But that is no argument for me in supporting this procedure.
965 Nor am I convinced of the fact that the hon. Member for Torquay was anxious to preserve the rights of Private Members in this House, because I remember the days when he functioned in a capacity other than that of a bank bencher in this House. I seem to remember that in those days the greater part of my Parliamentary life was spent in fighting for the rights of back benchers against the objections of the hon. Gentleman when he was occupying the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I cast no aspersions on the chair or on the occupancy of the Chair by the hon. Gentleman. What I do say is that he then had certain views about the rights of back benchers, and I had different views. I think we were both entitled to exercise our arguments in support of our point of view the only difference being that he was in the fortunate position of being able to give a Ruling and I was in the position of having always to accept his Ruling. I did so on every occasion, although sometimes with some doubts in my own mind.
I ask the Lord President to consider whether it is possible to put a peak figure on the number of Bills brought in under the Ten Minutes Rule. I think that what is troubling the Lord President is that we should lose so much ordinary Parliamentary time by a mass of Bills being introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule; and I am wondering whether we could say that in a given Session there shall be x number of Bills introduced in that Session, and that only the first 20 of whatever number are introduced shall be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule.
I should like to see all our pre-war rights restored in this connection. I am very jealous of the rights of Private Members. I am even more jealous of them in these days when back bench Members get so little opportunity ever to express themselves and, when they do express themselves, find that the points of view they have expressed are totally disregarded by those who wind up the Debates. Parliamentary democracy, if it means anything, means that every hon. Member has the right to make his impact upon the legislation of the day. Yet, so often it is the case now that back bench Members make a number of speeches which just float out on the air. They may find their place perhaps in the Press in one's constituency, but they are entirely dis- 966 regarded by the Executive in their consideration of the matters before the House.
Therefore, I am in sympathy with giving every possible opportunity to Private Members to express themselves, but I think it a very great pity that it, has been suggested that this Ten Minutes Rule for the introduction of Private Bills should be used for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member for Torquay. I hope that the Lord President will look at the matter again, if not in this Session, perhaps in the next Session. If it is necessary, for the purpose of safeguarding the time of the House, to put a peak figure on the number of Bills, let us do that; but it would have been very nice if the whole of the rights of Private Members had been restored to us.
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Butcher (Holland with Boston)I should like to put before the Lord President one further reason why this right of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule should be restored. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that when the rights of Private Members are restored, it is not ungracious to say a word of thanks to the person who restores them. I think he is correct. Anybody who had had his clothes taken care of, would be happy to receive back a full outfit, but no one would miss—or would perhaps not regard it as of particular importance if he did—a handkerchief. He might not regard that as being serious, but if at any time he had a cold, he would be, at least temporarily, embarrassed.
I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He has gone a long way indeed——
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI have.
§ Mr. ButcherWell, "be not weary in well doing." The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to restore the full rights of Private Members. The only thing about which we can complain in any way is that this right of introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule has not been restored. It is a long time since Bills were introduced under this Rule, and during almost the whole of that time the right hon. Gentleman has been in office—and in high office. If he will allow me to say so, he has become a little too much Front-Bench minded.
967 It may very well be that he thinks Bills introduced by Private Members under this Standing Order No. 12 will be a nuisance to the Government. If they are, and if they take excessive time from the working hours of the House, then the experiment can be abandoned. But we are starting again with almost the complete restoration of the rights of Private Members and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, without committing himself too far ahead, to make a full restoration at the present time.
There are in this Chamber at the present time rather more than 400 hon. Members who have had no experience at all of whether the Ten Minutes Rule could be valuable or otherwise. In fairness to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, many of whom sit behind him, I believe the Lord President should give them the opportunity to exercise the right of Private Members in this House which was, on the whole, wisely exercised in pre-war times.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)My views on this matter have been expressed annually since I became a Member of this House. This is the only occasion on which I deplore the promotion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, because I miss his help in the defence of the rights of Private Members. My views are very simple. My first is that the powers of the Government nave increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished. My second is that the verbosity of Front Bench speakers has increased, is still increasing, and might well be diminished.
If we wanted to find 25 minutes to allocate to Private Members we could well take it from the time lost on such occasions as yesterday when we had something like three or four hours devoted to Front Bench orations. It would not be difficult. It is the bounden duty of every Private Member to recollect that he occupies a temporary seat here and that he must protect the rights of his successors who will occupy that seat. Therefore, it is right that we should make the sturdiest defence of Private Members' rights. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for giving me an excuse to reconcile my duty to the Government 968 with my conscience on this somewhat difficult occasion if we come to a Division.
I hope that we shall not have to face that difficult decision. This is a back benchers' day. We are talking about back benchers' rights and I feel—and here I make a suggestion entirely without authority—that there might very well be channels of communication between back benchers when we deal with questions affecting Private Members' rights.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)Unusual channels.
§ Mr. HaleUnusual channels. I am very much obliged for that suggestion. I hope that this mode of procedure has now been christened and that it may have an effect.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have called the Amendment, but I really sought to catch your eye on a different matter arising out of the discussion on the Motion. I think that it will be in order to consider what rights we have got. Although the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has put with complete accuracy the constitutional view point, it is right to remember that for 10 years this House voluntarily surrendered all rights of Private Members—for nine years, every right; and for one year, practically every right. This is a very welcome return of our rights. It is something that we ought to welcome. It is something substantial.
I want to make two apologies to the House. The first is that I am going to commit the discourtesy, having addressed the House, of leaving it because there is a meeting upstairs waiting for my attendance. The second is that I speak on this occasion as one who has had no experience of the Ten Minutes Rule and no knowledge of its working. Therefore, I say to my right hon. Friend that our approach to this matter must be that a Committee of the House was appointed to consider the position, and that that Committee unanimously reported in favour of this restoration. That is a consideration which must affect our minds when approaching the matter in the first instance.
I know that my right hon. Friend has considered this matter and that he has given substantial concessions. I urge him to consider the restoration of 969 this procedure. The hon. Member for Torquay talked about raising nationalisation issues under the Ten Minutes Rule——
§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)Surely, a Private Member has the right to hold views of his own about nationalised industries and about any other matter? A Private Member may have views about nationalised industries quite distinct from the views held by his own Front Bench. That is, apparently, the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Poole).
§ Mr. HaleI am obliged for the hon. Gentleman for putting that point of view. It enables me to put the view which I rose to put and which I was somewhat reluctant to put because I felt that it was almost impertinent for me as a back bencher to put it to the House. I feel rather deeply about this matter. In the last Session we restored the right to move Motions on Fridays. That is a very great privilege. It is certainly a right that we cherish. But what in fact happened on Fridays, in general, was that we discussed purely national issues—party issues. We had a party battle on great matters that were properly the subject for discussion on Supply Days. In a sense, we surrendered the genuine rights of Private Members to raise social issues of great importance which might be raised on those days.
I say this sincerely. I am only putting an individual point of view, and it may be a wrong point of view, but I put it sincerely, and this is where I think unusual channels might have some purpose. We ought to cherish our right to raise real social issues. We ought on Fridays, whenever we can, to try to cut the party divisions and to discuss these matters from the point of view of individuals interested in humanity who have questions to raise. Hon. Gentlemen will remember the message of the Queen of the Fairies in "Iolanthe" about the reformation of the House of Lords when she said:
And a duke's exalted station,Be attainable by Competitive Examination.I am in favour of that, but the real menace was that:He shall end the cherished rightsThat we enjoy on Friday nights.My right hon. Friend has restored the cherished right that we enjoy on Friday 970 morning. But if we debate party issues on Fridays we are losing the cherished right that we enjoy on Friday nights because we have to vote at 4 o'clock. The Whips are put on because major measures of Government policy are discussed on those days. That is why I suggest to the House that some means might well be devised to try to devote our Fridays to the discussion of important social issues which it was always the desire of Private Members to discuss on those days. That is a matter which might well be discussed through unusual channels.Having said that, and coming back to the Amendment, I say that, in view of what the hon. Member for Torquay has said, I shall be bound to support the Government if a Division is challenged. I sincerely hope that on this matter a Division will not be challenged for the reasons which were so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
§ 4.38 p.m.
§ Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury and Radcliffe)I should like to add one point to what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). He should have continued the quotation by saying:
You shall sit, if he sees reason.Through the grouse and salmon season.This certainly is a salmon Session if not the salmon season. The point the hon. Gentleman made gave a clue to something of importance which I think has been hidden. He indicated that we should devote the Ten Minutes Rule time almost entirely to social questions——
§ Mr. FletcherMotions on Fridays—but surely that makes it much too narrow. I remember that not long ago we talked about the prevention of cruelty to animals and the docking of horses' tails in Scotland. Those were not national questions. Surely the essence of this matter is that there should be complete freedom. If a Member wishes to discuss something which affects the area he represents and which has to do with nationalisation, he is perfectly entitled, and should be entitled, to do that. No reproach should be made to him because he happens at the same time to raise questions which 971 have been brought into being by nationalisation.
I think that, inadvertently, the hon. Member was narrowing the rights of the Private Member. We must recollect that in making use of the Ten Minutes Rule, and any other of the rights of the Private Member, an hon. Member must be allowed to discuss what he considers important himself. It should not in any way be considered beyond the point which I think the hon. Member inadvertently indicated, and which might tend towards using this Rule far too much.
§ Mr. NicholsonThe other day, when discussing this matter, the Lord President produced as the only reason against the Ten Minutes Rule the fact that it took Government time. I hope that in his speech now he will produce some evidence showing how much Government time was taken by it before the war. I content myself with that request, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is a good House of Commons man and is anxious to protect the rights of hon. Members on both sides.
§ 4.41 p.m.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I hope I am a good House of Commons man. I try to be, because I have a duty as Leader of the House, above all in that capacity, to represent to the Government the rights of the House of Commons, and I try to do so. I could not give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked, and, indeed, my argument about the Ten Minutes Rule, at any rate, as things are, is not so much about the encroachment on Government time, though that is a factor which is not altogether excluded from my mind.
Frankly, my bigger consideration is protecting the House and Private Members. I know there was some indication of disagreement to the effect, "Let's go on sitting until 11 o'clock" though in those days the House did not start until 2.45 p.m.; admittedly that gave another three quarters of an hour. Well, there is a difference of opinion about it, and my judgment is that there is a large body of hon. Members who would not like to go back to 11 o'clock, though there are others who would. Hon. Members have 972 got a day, and whether the House forfeits another half an hour or whatever it may be on the Ten Minutes Rule, obviously the Government business will certainly take that much longer, and still more so on Committee Stages. But, then, we have had the experience on both sides of hon. Members talking until satisfaction was reached or until actual exhaustion brought proceedings to an end.
Believe it or not, I am absolutely sincere when I say that I am fundamentally concerned about preserving the rights of back benchers. It is inevitable that Front Benchers will talk. I talk myself, at varying length. Today I was very good on other days, I am not so good, and may take longer. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench also talk. It is often a complaint that they take too much time, and I have a lot of sympathy with that view, and that, by the time the Front Benchers have had their go, the time for back benchers is limited. I have a lot of sympathy with them. It is the case that, on the Ten Minutes Rule, so called, with ten minutes one way and ten minutes the other way and about ten minutes for a Division, half an hour has gone, and, under the Standing Orders, there can be more than one Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.
My business is to study the House of Commons, and it is a most interesting place. It reserves the right to take up one position one day, and to grumble about having taken it up a fortnight later. It is one of the charms of this democratic assembly. I have it in my bones that, if this were agreed to, within a month hon. Members would be complaining about the encroachment on the time for general debates in the House. On the practical point, my hon. Friend, and, indeed, hon. Members opposite, have been good enough to say that we have gone a long way on this matter. I do not challenge the argument that the House has its rights under Standing Orders, but the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, who functions as Deputy-Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and I have considered this in a most sympathetic manner, and I thought that we had gone a very long way to assist the House.
The other point is a practical point. What is the advantage of the Ten Minutes Rule? It is not an advantage for the presentation of Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: 973 "Oh."] I shall come to the advantages in a minute. In the net result, it is not an advantage, because under the Rule as to presentation, if an hon. Member presents his Bill, the fact is that he has presented it and he has got it, up to that point. [Laughter.] It is true that then he must try his art in trying to sneak the thing through.
An hon. Member opposite gave us an illustration of the Ten Minutes Rule, and was boasting about the manner in which he sneaked the Bill through and got legislation on the Statue Book on the nod. He spoke for six minutes under the Ten Minutes Rule, which was very decent of him, and saved the House four minutes. After that, he said he got the Second Reading on the nod, the Committee stage on the nod, and, as there was no Report stage, he got the Third Reading on the nod. Legislation on the nod is not a particularly bright achievement of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. R. RobinsonWill the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I certainly did not boast about it; I was informing the House how it came about, and the point was that I had taken care to get my Bill supported by the Minister of Health and by Members of all parties, and I had a House of 300 interested in what was happening. I had to see dozens of other hon. Members to explain it to them, because without that, it would have been almost impossible.
§ Mr. MorrisonI am not grumbling at the hon. Gentleman; indeed, I congratulate him on his Parliamentary skill. It is obvious that he is a born Parliamentary manipulator. I am afraid of his qualities, because he has been most skilful and I congratulate him upon it. He has brought forward this example of the way in which it is possible to pass legislation on the nod, but I remember the Leader of the Opposition denouncing us for turning Parliament into a sausage machine, pouring out legislation in a most shameful manner.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his boast, and I congratulate him, but he had better be careful lest the country gets the idea that Parliament passes legislation on the nod—although in this case we might think it was pretty innocent. But if the hon. Gentleman had brought in his Bill on presentation, he would have had just as good a chance, I submit— 974 [Interruption.] Yes, he would have had just as good a chance as he had under the Ten Minutes Rule.
§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a lot of legislation goes through this House without even a nod? I refer, of course, to Statutory Instruments.
§ Mr. MorrisonThat is a totally different matter, and, far from it going through on the nod, the hon. Gentleman knows how the whole House is kept up at night discussing Prayers, and quite rightly, as they do at present. This is not a fair analogy. I only say that, if the hon. Member had presented his Bill in the ordinary way, with the skill and ability which he obviously possesses, he would have stood just as good a chance of getting the Bill through as otherwise.
The advantage of the Ten Minutes Rule is that it gives hon. Members the chance to make speeches which will be reported in HANSARD and elsewhere, and I am not going to underestimate that consideration. I do submit to the House, however, that in existing circumstances, with the House adjourning at 10 o'clock, it will cramp the style of back benchers in the subsequent day's Debates, and I am firmly convinced that, within a month, I should have questions on Thursdays whether we were permanently extending the Sitting to 11 o'clock. I know that some hon. Members would like it, and that there are hon. Members who like staying out late at night, while there are others who do not, and I have got to take all God's children into account in this matter.
On the whole, I think the House would not like it. We do agree that the presentation of a Bill gives a substantial advantage and we think that the House should accept it for this Session. I do not say that for all time the Ten Minutes Rule will not be coming back. I am willing to think about it in regard to future Sessions; an hon. Member has asked me to do that, and I shall do so. I cannot give any undertaking or promise in the matter.
There is another alternative in order to protect Private Members on ordinary Sittings of the House, and that might be to make this provision operate on Fridays which are Private Members' days, and which I do not think would prejudice the passing of a Bill or a Motion moved 975 upon those days. I should be perfectly ready to consider that, and, if it were the general wish of the House, I think that is a possible solution. It is not a matter on which the fate of Government depends; it is a procedural matter, but I assure the House that I have been considering it with my right hon. Friends on the basis of the general convenience of the House, and, honestly, at any rate in the circumstances of this Session, I think it would be best to let the Motion go through——
§ Commander Pursey (Hull, East)On the nod?
§ Mr. MorrisonHeavens, no; not on the nod.
I should be willing to think about the Friday point favourably, and certainly in connection with any future Session, but I think it would not be unreasonable for the House to accept the Motion and let it go at that, unless it wants us to consider the Friday point further. I hope that may be agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 235.
979| Division No. 4.] | AYES | [4.53 p.m. |
| Acland, Sir Richard | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) |
| Adam, Richard | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | Keenan, W. |
| Albu, A. H. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphllly) | Kenyon, C. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Key, Rt. Hon. C W |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehavan) | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | King, H. M. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Kinley, J. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Ewart, R. | Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D |
| Ayles, W. H. | Fairhurst, F. | Lang, Rev G |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Fernyhough, E. | Lee, F. (Newton) |
| Balfour, A. | Field, Capt. W. J. | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Finch, H. J. | Lever, L. M (Ardwick) |
| Bartley, P. | Follick, M. | Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.) |
| Benson, G. | Foot, M. M. | Lindgren, G. S. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Forman, J. C. | Lipton, Lt.-Col M |
| Bing, G. H. C | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | McGhee, H. G |
| Blyton, W. R. | Freeman, J. (Watford) | McGovern, J. |
| Boardman, H. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | McInnes. J. |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Ganley, Mrs C S | McKay, J (Wallsend) |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Gilzean, A. | McLeavy, F |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | McNell, Rt. Hon H. |
| Brookway, A. Fener | Gooch, E. G. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P C | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) |
| Brooks, T. J. (Normanlon) | Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale) | Mann, Mrs. J. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Grey, C. F. | Manuel, A. C |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Griffiths, D (Rother Valley) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) | Mathers, Rt. Hon. George |
| Burke, W. A. | Gunter, R. J. | Mellish, R. J. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Haire, John E (Wycombe) | Messer, F. |
| Callaghan, James | Hale, J. (Rochdale) | Middleton, Mrs. L. |
| Carmichael, James | Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Hall, J (Gateshead, W.) | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Champion, A. J | Hamilton, W. W. | Monslow, W. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Hannan, W. | Morley, R. |
| Clunie, J. | Hardman, D. R. | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Hardy, E. A. | Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.) |
| Coldrick, W. | Hargreaves, A. | Mort, D. L |
| Collick, P. | Harrison, J. | Moyle, A. |
| Collindridge, F. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mulley, F. W. |
| Cooper, J. (Deptford) | Hayman, F. H. | Murray, J. D. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham) | Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis) | Nally, W. |
| Cove, W. G. | Herbison, Miss M. | Neat, H. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Holman, P | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A | Holmes, H E (Hemsworth) | Oldfield, W. H. |
| Daines, P. | Houghton, Douglas | Oliver, G. H. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Hoy, J. | Orbach, M. |
| Darling, G. (Hillsboro') | ||
| Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) | Padley, W. E. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Pannell, T. C. |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Parker, J. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Paton, J. |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Pearson, A. |
| Deer, G. | Janner, B. | Peart, T. F. |
| Dodds, N. N. | Jay, D. P. T. | Pools, Cecil |
| Donnelly, D. | Jeger, G. (Goole) | Popplewell, E. |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.) | Porter, G. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich) | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Dye, S. | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Pryde, D. J. |
| Pursey, Comdr. H. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Rankin, J. | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. | West, D. G. |
| Reid, T. (Swindon) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. | Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.) |
| Reid, W. (Camlachie) | Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall) | White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint) |
| Rhodes, H. | Stross, Dr. B. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Richards, R. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith | Whiteley, Rt. Hon W |
| Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Sylvester, G. O. | Wigg, George |
| Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Royle, C. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Shackleton, E. A. A. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H | Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Silverman, S S (Nelson) | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G | Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.) |
| Simmons, C. J. | Vernon, Maj. W. F | Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside) |
| Slater, J. | Viant, S. P. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A |
| Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Wallace, H. W. | Woods Rev. G. S. |
| Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | Watkins, T. E. | Yates, V. F. |
| Snow, J. W. | Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford, C.) | |
| Sparks, J. A. | Weitzman, D | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Bowden and Mr. Delargy. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Dunglass, Lord | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Duthie W. S. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Amery, J. (Preston, N.) | Eccles, D. M. | McAdden, S. J. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Elliot, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon Walter | McCallum, Maj. D. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Fisher, Nigel | McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Fletcher, W. (Bury) | Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh) |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Fort, R. | Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone) | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. |
| Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. | Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) | McKibbin, A. |
| Bell, R. M. | Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) | Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) | Maclay, Hon. J. S |
| Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport) | Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) | Maclean, F. H. R |
| Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) | Gammans, L. D. | MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth) | Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) |
| Birch, Nigel | Gates, Maj E. E. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) |
| Black, C. W. | Gridley, Sir A. | Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) | Grimond, J | Marlowe, A. A. H. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans) | Marples, A. E. |
| Bower, N. | Grimston, R. V. (Westbury) | Marshall, D. (Bodmin) |
| Boyd-Carpenter J. A. | Harden, J. R. E. | Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) | Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.) |
| Braine, B. | Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) | Maude, J. C. (Exeter) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Harris, R. R. (Heston) | Maudling, R. |
| Brooke, H. (Hampstead) | Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield) | Medlicott, Brigadier F. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Mellor, Sir J. |
| Bullock, Capt. M. | Hay, John | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. |
| Bullus, Wing Commander E E | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C | Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen) |
| Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A. | Heath, Edward | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Nabarro, G. |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) | Nicholls, H. | |
| Carr, L. R. (Mitcham) | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Nicholson, G. |
| Channon, H. | Higgs, J. M. C. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Colegate, A. | Hollis, M. C. | Odey, G. W. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Hope, Lord J. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. |
| Cooper, A. E. (Ilford S.) | Hopkinson, H. L. D'A | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss P | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence | Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne) | Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) | Peake, Rt. Hon O. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C | Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M |
| Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R | Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Crouch, R. F. | Hyde, H. M. | Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) |
| Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood) | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Cundiff, F. W. | Kaberry, D. | Profumo, J. D. |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Keeling, E. H | Raikes, H. V. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.) | Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Lambert, Hon. G. | Redmayne, M. |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Langford-Holt, J. | Remnant, Hon. P. |
| Davies, Nigel (Epping) | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Renton, D. L. M. |
| De la Bère, R. | Leather, E. H, C. | Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) |
| Deedes, W. F. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H | Roberts, P. G. (Heeley) |
| Digby, S. Wingfield | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D | Linstead, H. N. | Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Donner, P. W. | Llewellyn, D. | Robson-Brown, W. (Esher) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) | Roper, Sir H. |
| Drewe, C. | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Low, A. R. W. | Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Russell, R. S. |
| Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Studholme. H. G. | Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Scott, Donald | Summers, G. S. | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle) | Sutcliffe, H. | Waterhouse, Capt. C. |
| Smith, E. Martin (Grantham) | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) | Watkinson, H. |
| Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester) | Teeling, William | Webbe, Sir H. (London) |
| Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington) | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) | Wheatley, Major M J (Poole) |
| Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood) | Thompson, R. H. M. (Crovdon, W.) | White, J. Baker (Canterbury) |
| Snadden, W. McN. | Thornton-Kemsley, C N | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Soames, Capt. C. | Thorp, Brigadier R. A. [...] | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Spearman, A. C. M. | Tilney, John | Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon. E.) |
| Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.) | Touche, G. C. | Wills, G |
| Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde) | Turton, R. H. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure) |
| Stevens, G. P. | Tweedsmuir, Lady | Wood, Hon. R |
| Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) | Vane, W. M. F. | York, C |
| Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. | |
| Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | Vosper, D. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) | Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.) | Mr. Pickthorn and |
| Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) | Walker-Smith, D. C. | Viscount H'nchingbrook. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Resolved:
That—