Clause 2.—(APPLICATION TO ISLE OF MAN.)

HC Deb 27 November 1951 vol 494 cc1393-449

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ede

The Committee is entitled to know what are the Government's intentions, what use they propose to make of this Clause, and how they propose to apply it—if that is their intention. There is no indication in the Clause of their intentions. We should also be assured on the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), during some earlier remarks of mine, about how far this Clause can be used to affect the lives and interests of persons living in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

He seemed to think that arrangements could be made by which a person could be sent from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man. At that time we had the advantage of the presence of the Attorney-General, who nodded his head in assent to my proposition that that was not the way in which the Clause could be used; that this Clause might apply to persons resident or domiciled in the Isle of Man, but could not be used to direct the lives or influence members of the Home Guard resident in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I gather that the hon. and learned Gentleman still thinks that this is the proper interpretation of the Clause.

5.45 a.m.

The Isle of Man is for all practical purposes a self-governing community with a Parliament—the House of Keys and Tynwald—which claims to be even more ancient than this House. The people of the island are, as I know after having had six years of dealing with them, jealous of this independence, especially in all matters concerned with the liberty of the subject.

The Leader of the House, who was for some years Under-Secretary at the Home Office has no doubt had oppor- tunities of realising that this is so. I think we are entitled to know whether this Clause has been inserted at the request of the Isle of Man, or whether it has been put in the Bill without their request, and what consultations or negotiations there have been between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Isle of Man on this matter.

I know that the Home Secretary (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) is at Strasbourg. The Under-Secretary was in the Committee yesterday, but I have not seen him during recent hours. It may be that he has flitted in and out on his way to the Division Lobbies without my having seen him, but he has certainly not been in the House for some time. I think the Department responsible for making arrangements between His Majesty's Government and the Isle of Man ought to be represented when we are dealing with a Clause relating to the Isle of Man.

We ought to know whether the adaptations which may be specified in any order will introduce in such an order dealing with the Isle of Man considerations which are not to be found in any orders relating to Great Britain or Northern Ireland. Is it proposed that a person resident in the Isle of Man may by these orders be made liable for duty in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or are the duties of Manxmen confined to the Isle of Man?

We heard earlier in the Debate, when the matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), something about the difficulty of sending some persons recruited in the Irish quarter of Glasgow into Northern Ireland. I know something of the jealousy that exists, and I can see some considerable difficulty if someone recruited in Douglas was sent to Blackpool, for the patriotism of these people, in regard to their own hotel and boarding-house accommodation, especially when compared with their competitors in Lancashire, is something to be seen and experienced before one can realise how intensely patriotic people can be on that subject.

This Clause is one about which I think the Committee ought to know whether it is put into the Bill as something that may be necessary in the future, whether it has been asked for by the Isle of Man and whether effective consultations have taken place between H.M. Government and the authorities of the Isle of Man. We have recently had a General Election. Since then there has been a General Election in the Isle of Man, and in view of the peculiar constitution of the representative institutions in the Isle of Man I should have thought that it was very doubtful if, during the period between the Isle of Man General Election and the present time, there has been anybody who can effectively speak for the Isle of Man in any negotiations that may have taken place.

We occupied about 14 hours in considering the previous Clause, and while I would not like to suggest that an important Clasue of this nature should be disposed of in less time than we took to discuss Clause 1, I think that, on this occasion, we might get from the Under-Secretary, if he is to reply, some assurance on the point I have raised, so that we may feel assured that the legitimate feeling of independence in the Isle of Man has not been in any way outraged by the course of the proceedings on this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in suggesting that this Clause requires some further elucidation before we on this side of the Committee, at any rate, are prepared to accept it.

Although my right hon. Friend has addressed some very cogent questions to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Front Bench, I do not view the prospect of a satisfactory reply with very great optimism, noticing as I do that this Clause of the Bill has, apparently, been entrusted to the Under-Secretary to the War Office assisted, presumably, by the Solicitor-General. It appears that the Attorney-General has moved down the line somewhat, and that we are not to be favoured with his intervention in the discussion that has become necessary on this Clause.

In my view, this Clause is most ambiguous, because it may mean many things. It could mean, of course, that it is the intention of the Government that citizens residing in the Isle of Man shall be eligible to volunteer for the Home Guard, and that may be one interpretation to be placed on the Clause. It may mean that any person residing in the Isle of Man or domiciled there may enlist in or join the Home Guard, and, in that way, render himself liable for service in some part of the United Kingdom other than the Isle of man—in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales. It may also mean, of course, that persons residing in any of the regions I have mentioned may find themselves sent to the Isle of Man for the purpose of discharging their Home Guard duties.

We do not want to create any ill-will between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, and that is why it is important that the Committee should receive some assurance from the Government Front Bench that there have been the closest possible consultations with such authorities in the Isle of Man as may be concerned or who have a right to be consulted in this matter.

As we are discussing the Isle of Man, and the effect that this Bill may have upon the people living there and their liability to serve outside the island, and the effect it may have of a person enlisting in England being sent to the Isle of Man, consideration is also needed as to whether a similar Clause or a similar provision should not be extended to the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands may well play an important part in the Home Guard defence.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Touche)

We cannot discuss the Channel Islands on this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I hope that now I have mentioned the matter, the Under-Secretary of State for War may find it possible on the Report stage to introduce an Amendment which will cover that point.

This matter of the Isle of Man and its relationship to the Home Guard defence arrangements of this country should be fully explained. We are anxious to know whether or not there have been adequate consultations with the authorities in the Isle of Man, because we do not want to encourage or hostility between the legislative Assembly and the historic legislative Assembly which has operated with distinction in the Isle of Man for many centuries past.

In the last war we made use of the Isle of Man as a dumping ground for all kinds of undesirable people, and I do not know whether that found favour with the residents there. I happen to know that there are quite a number of people living there who are not very pleased at the use made of that island by the Government of this country during the war years. We do not want to exacerbate the ill-feeling, relics of which still persist in the island as a result of the way or the use that was made of the facilities there during the last war.

I very much hope that the reasonable and sensible questions that have been addressed to the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will receive the careful and courteous consideration that they deserve. As I said at the outset, I view the prospect of such a reply with qualified optimism, seeing who is in charge of this Clause at the present moment. But I do not despair of an adequate, sensible and courteous reply, to which this Committee is entitled in response to the questions put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee with due regard to the responsibilities which we as the Opposition have to discharge in ensuring that before it leaves us this Bill is adequate for its purpose.

The Bill has not been very carefully drafted, and the Clause we are now discussing is a further example of the ill-conceived, ill-drafted and ambiguous language in which this Measure has been thrown at the Committee. I ask Members opposite to believe me when I say that we are trying to make the best of a bad job.

6.0 a.m.

This Bill is unsatisfactory from many points of view, and not the least in regard to this Clause, in which, it may be that with the best of intentions, we are laying in store for ourselves a lot of trouble with the decent, law-abiding citizens of that little island standing between the Lancashire coast and Northern Ireland. In an atomic war the Isle of Man may occupy a position of great strategic importance.

There is another matter which ought not to be overlooked. If, for example, the main base of the United Kingdom is destroyed we might find that, if hon. Members opposite are still in charge of the destiny of this country, we shall have to assemble in the Isle of Man and enjoy the hospitality of that island to carry on our deliberations, as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

For that reason we must be careful not to embark upon procedure likely to alienate the law-abiding people of that island. Perhaps the Secretary of State, who is now here, indicates by his arrival that this matter is of such importance that it cannot safely be entrusted to the Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General. I take leave to suppose that the importance of this Clause has necessitated the return to the Committee of the Secretary of State for War who, I hope, will be able to supplement, and will probably need to supplement, such answers to the points which have been raised as have emanated from the Under-Secretary or from the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Adams

I am sure that it will be agreed that this Clause, consisting of only three short lines, shows scant courtesy to one of our oldest allies. We must hope that before this Bill leaves the Committee we shall get some indication of what is intended in regard to our relations with this tiny island.

The attitude of hon. Members opposite shows no regard for the Isle of Man. The moment that Clause 2 of this Bill comes up for discussion the Secretary of State for War departs. He has no interest in the Isle of Man. The Solicitor-General takes over from the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is not interested in the Isle of Man, and the Solicitor-General is trundled up to answer any legal points which may arise.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

A bad sign.

Mr. Adams

The Under-Secretary is left to handle this matter with the Solicitor-General. It is true that the Leader of the House remains. That is probably because he is too tired to move. It is true that we had no reply from him when we last moved to report Progress. We may hope that he will take the opportunity to reply when we move to report Progress again. We may hope, perhaps, that the Leader of the House will give some dignity to this discussion by indicating when we may expect to have the Report stage, and also how far it is intended to proceed with this Bill this morning.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the way this problem was handled in the more spacious days of 1907. We had a great regard for our ally in those days and I propose to inform the Committee of the way in which the problem was dealt with then. As we have emphasised on every possible occasion, this Bill should have been based upon this great structure created by Lord Haldane, who I may remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), since he suddenly seems to be evincing some interest in the debate, was Lord Chancellor three times.

Sir W. Darling

Also a Scotsman.

Mr. Adams

Then I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Member in getting the Government Benches to say they prefer to put down an Amendment themselves to deal with this gallant ally of ours in the way in which Lord Haldane dealt with the Isle of Man instead of dealing with the island in the very scant way of this Bill.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

Since the hon. Member has referred to Lord Haldane in such glowing terms, he might bear in mind that Lord Haldane was the first great Englishman to advise co-ordinating Ministers.

Mr. Adams

I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me that perhaps my tribute to Lord Haldane was as scant as Clause 2 of this Bill. He was undoubtedly the great administrator of the Army. We owe a great debt of gratitude to him. We may say that our success in two world wars was due to the groundwork for which he was responsible. It occurs to me that just as Lord Kitchener undid much of the good Lord Haldane had done, so the new Secretary of State for War, another professional soldier like Lord Kitchener, is rushing into the War Office and bringing in a Bill which is certainly unworthy of the occasion.

I commend him to look back at the mistakes made by that other professional soldier, Lord Kitchener, and then to seek true guidance from the great work done by Lord Haldane. If he pays greater regard to Lord Haldane than he does to Lord Kitchener there is some hope that we may get some sound work of administration at the War Office.

I wanted to compare the two methods of treating the Isle of Man. This Bill says curtly, in an off-hand way: His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall extend to the Isle of Man, subject however to such adaptations as may be specified in the Order. It is not mentioned what adaptations are necessary. There is no indication at all how the Government will treat the island. Let us turn from that curt, off-hand wording and see how the problem was dealt with in Section 40 (2) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907. It says: This Act shall apply to the Isle of Man as if it formed part of, and were included in the expression, the United Kingdom, subject to the following modifications:— And it is these modifications I recommend to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State for War before he replies: (a) The Isle of Man shall be deemed to be a separate county; In other words, we recognise the status of that island. We put it on all fours with Surrey, Middlesex or Lancashire or any other county in England. We recognise and establish the status of that island in that first paragraph: References to the Governor of the island shall be substituted for references to the lieutenant of a county.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must direct his attention to what is in this Clause alone on the Motion which the Committee is discussing.

Mr. Adams

I suggest there is simply nothing in this Clause to discuss, so I must of necessity go outside to deal with what ought to be in it. We are now discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and there are no Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman

There are no Amendments on it, but on this Motion we must keep to what is in the Clause.

Mr. Frederick Messer (Tottenham)

Surely the hon. Gentleman is entitled to give reasons why the Clause should not stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman

He is entitled to give reasons but not to deal with something outside the Clause.

Mr. Bing

I understand my hon. Friend's argument is that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill because it does not contain provisions that appeared in another Act. Perhaps he did not put it clearly, and I was hoping that some of us might be able to put it in another way later.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I would certainly like to elicit from the Secretary of State the reasons for putting this Clause into the Bill in this particular form. That seems to me to be what my hon. Friend is seeking to do.

The Deputy-Chairman

It would be in order to ask the Secretary of State why this clause is in the Bill.

Mr. Adams

I accept the rebuke of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and I congratulate him on seeing more clearly than the occupants of the Front Bench opposite what I am driving at. I was trying to get the Secretary of State to appreciate that Clause 2 is unsatisfactory because it contains nothing. It is curt and abrupt, and it gives no indication of what our relationship with the island is to be.

I was going to suggest that in Clause 2 there should be some reference to regarding the Isle of Man as a county for the purpose of organisation in the Home Guard, and that there should be some reference to the status of the Governor of the island.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is absolutely beyond the Clause.

Mr. Adams

If I have made those points clear and cannot develop them further, I propose to go on to references to the High Bailiff or two Justices of the Peace in substitution for references to summary court of jurisdiction.

The Deputy-Chairman

That, I am afraid, is subject to the same objection as the hon. Member's previous point.

Mr. Adams

You see, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the difficulty we are in. The Clause contains nothing and we are extremely limited in making our proposals. If we are not able to discuss what ought to be in the Clause, I suggest that the Under-Secretary withdraw it entirely and undertake on Report stage to put down the kind of Clause we would like to see in this Bill, namely, a Clause containing information of our relationship with the Isle of Man.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is trying to get around the difficulty, but it still remains. We are still limited to this Clause.

Mr. Ede

This Clause provides for an Order in Council, and surely my hon. Friend is entitled to ask whether that Order will bring the administration of this Act in the Isle of Man into line with the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. 1907.

6.15 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

He is also seeking to bring it into line with a great variety of other things. If he is seeking to elucidate information from the Secretary of State as to why this Clause is here, that is in order. But to suggest that a variety of other things that are not in this Clause should be included, however, is totally different, and is not in order.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

In view of the fact the words contained in this Clause are subject to an Order, is not it in order for somebody to suggest the details he would like to see in that Order, if this Clause is to stand part of the Bill? It seems otherwise that one is dealing with something which is absolutely unintelligible because it does not represent a factual position. It only represents a hypothetical position in respect of an Order which may be made at some future time, the contents of the Order not being available when we are discussing it.

Mr. Hector Hughes

We are confronted here with a short but ambiguous Clause. It is difficult to find out what its meaning is. Is my hon. Friend not entitled to apply analogies and look back on other legislation for the purpose of defining what is the obscure meaning of this remarkable Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have just pointed out that if the hon. Member is seeking to elucidate information regarding any ambiguity in the Clause, that is in order. If he says that some other Clause should be substituted for it, that is out of order.

Mr. Janner

Is not the actual position that an hon. Member of this Committee is entitled to say that if certain things are to be in the Order he would be prepared to accept the Clause as it stands, but that if they are not to be in the Order he would not be. If one cannot do that, there is very little purpose in discussing the Clause at all.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Clause is very limited, and the Order is not before the Committee.

Mr. Swingler

Clause 2 has the word "adaptations" in it, and it speaks of "adaptations" in the Bill to apply to the Isle of Man. Are we, or are we not, entitled to discuss what the "adaptations" should be when applied to the Isle of Man? The Clause says: …subject however to such adaptations as may be specified in the Order. As "adaptations" of the whole of this Bill is mentioned in this Clause, are we not entitled to discuss what ought to be the "adaptations" to apply to the conditions of the Isle of Man?

The Deputy-Chairman

It would not be in order here to discuss the "adaptations" specified in the Order.

Mr. Crossman

What my hon. Friend is doing is to compare the present holder of the office with a very famous previous holder, Lord Haldane. How is one able to show one's feeling of dissatisfaction more categorically to certain Clauses of this Bill than to illustrate it by showing that this Clause falls short of a Clause included by a Secretary of State, with whom it is a compliment to compare the present Secretary of State unfavourably. I feel that this presentation by my hon. Friend was a little lengthy, but it was a tactful one. My hon. Friend was diplomatically pointing out the difference between the scant courtesy of the present holder of the office with the greater amplitude of his predecessor.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman may make reference to it, but he can not develop in detail what is not in the Clause.

Mr. Crossman

How can one explain, without going through this in the broadest outline, the great difference between Lord Haldane's treatment of the Isle of Man in that previous famous passage, which I am sure all of us knew before, with these three lines of the present Bill? I do not see how it can be shown how the three lines can be expanded without the use of a few words of detail.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member may be in great difficulty, but that is another matter. The Clause is a three-line Clause, and a very limited, narrow Clause.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I speak as one who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, on this exceedingly important Clause. We shall be having to ask questions as to the meaning of the word "adaptations." We do not know whether they are to be geographical, statistical, or in the form of Statutory Instruments; whether they are to exclude military law or to add more military law; whether they are to apply to people in the Isle of Man only or to people from this country who are serving in the Isle of Man, and so on. Really, this is a constitutional argument of the greatest possible importance.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is a separate question. The hon. Member, as I understood him, was discussing a totally different Section of an Act.

Mr. Crossman

No.

Mr. Adams

It is so long ago since I was speaking, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I had better start again. This is a difficult point to develop, and with the interventions from my hon. Friends, for which I am grateful, and as a result of the Rulings you have given, I see more clearly now the line that I must pursue.

I was trying to support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who was asking what would be the administration that would implement this very scant Clause of just three lines. All that I was doing was to compare this treatment with the more ample treatment given by Lord Haldane in 1907. I appeal to the Under-Secretary, although under your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, which I readily obey, I am not allowed to proceed any further in that direction.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will take advantage, in the fastnesses of the War Office, of reading the excellent Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and will see for himself—[Interruption.] I was dealing with Section 40 (2), which lays down very amply the exact relationship that should exist in the Territorial Forces, as they were in those days, between this country and the Isle of Man. We would like to see the same provisions made in the Bill, so that for all time there will be placed in the statute, as the Bill will become, the relationship between this country and the Isle of Man in the administration of the Home Guard.

I am sure the Under-Secretary would agree that to put in the Act what is intended and what the relationship is to be, is a much more satisfactory way of legislating than merely to say, in a curt, off-hand kind of way: His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall extend to the Isle of Man, subject however to such adaptations as may be specified in the Order. As my right hon. Friend has said, it took some 15 hours to deal with Clause 1. Had the Government had their way, I have not the slightest doubt that it would have been just as short as Clause 2. That would have meant that we should have had just as much difficulty in dealing with the points on Clause 1 as we are now experiencing on Clause 2.

I ask the Under-Secretary to explain, when he replies to this brief Debate, exactly what is to be in the Order which is to be adapted. We want him to tell us when the Order is to come into operation. When the Bill becomes an Act and is applied to this country, when the line has been drawn from Flamborough Head to Selsey Bill, and when the Home Guard has been brought into being east of that line and the cadres have been formed on the west of the line, what will be the position of the Isle of Man?

Will the Order have been brought out by that time? I can foresee the same kind of difficulties that were foreseen by my right hon. Friend. If the Isle of Man is to be brought within the scheme of this Bill and Manxmen are to be formed into a Home Guard, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us whether their duties are to be limited to looking after their own homes in the island or whether, if the Manxmen are mustered, they can be brought across the narrow channel in boats to deal with Irish who have mutinied in Liverpool.

I hope that we have succeeded in showing the Under-Secretary that we are very disturbed by the brevity of this Clause and I hope that before we go much further we may have considerable enlightenment from the Under-Secretary about what is proposed in the employment of this extremely brief Clause, and what will be in the Order adapted for the particular needs of this island.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

I hope it will be—

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. Are you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, calling the Under-Secretary now to conclude the Debate, because up to now we have had only one speech in support of the extremely important observations of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Is it intended to conclude the Debate?

The Deputy-Chairman

No.

Mr. Hutchison

I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I attempt to answer the questions which have been put. I might start with the questions put by at least two hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what are the intentions, particularly in the direction of movement of the Home Guard from the Isle of Man to the mainland or vice versa. One of the fundamental principles of the Bill is that before mustering there is no intention of their living away from their homes.

Mr. Bing

That is not so in regard to the Isle of Man because, of course, these provisions can be altered or adapted by Order.

Mr. Hutchison

I am talking about the Bill as it is and the area which is already covered. It has been emphasized by my right hon. Friend that there is no intention that members of the Home Guard should be called upon to live away from their homes in times of peace. It has further been emphasized by him that the conception was that the muster would be a local affair. It cannot be imagined that, even when mustering, there will be any need to move or advantage in moving Scotsmen to Northern Ireland or Manx-men to the mainland or vice versa.

Mr. Hale

As I understand it mustering is to repel attack, and if there is or is expected an attack in Norfolk, is it really suggested that Nottingham, Derbyshire and other Home Guards will not be sent there?

Mr. Hutchison

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the Home Guard is not a striking mobile unit. It is for repelling attacks in the Home Guards' locality, and to move large bodies of Home Guards from different areas is not contemplated.

6.30 a.m.

This is a permissive Clause. It does not impose the Home Guard on the Isle of Man. Of course it is the intention that consultations should take place before it is made to apply to the Isle of Man, and to be satisfied that the people there want it, and on the sort of adaptations required. But to take those adaptations straight out of a 1907 Act would not be a feasible proposition in 1951. This Clause imposes no hardship on anybody. The adaptations or modifications required would be laid down by Order in Council after consultation with the Isle of Man. Finally, it is suggested that we should redraft the Clause. In our view the Clause is satisfactory as it stands.

Mr. Hale

The Committee has just listened to the most ineffective, useless and hopeless sort of answer ever made in debate. I should have thought I was giving expression to the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House if I expressed our gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for initiating what appears to be a discussion of first-class importance.

This is the House of Commons trying to legislate. We have had produced to us a Bill which gives no detail of any kind, no information about the underlying principles, and which leaves everything to delegated legislation. We listened to hon. Members opposite for six years about delegated legislation, and this is the Bill which above all others is left to that form of legislation. This Clause says that the Government can adapt the Clause, without giving the slightest indication of what that means.

The Isle of Man has enjoyed independence of government for many centuries. It is one of the British Isles, part of our common heritage; we value it in spite of its old right of independence. It is fantastic that we should seek to pass a Clause of this kind without as far as we know any consultations having taken place with the representatives of the Government of the Isle of Man, or the trade unions or the representatives of organised industry. It is much more monstrous that the Under-Secretary should say so casually "That is not the concern of this busy Government at this time, we ask you to pass this Clause without knowing whether they want it, or will co-operate in it."

Most of these matters are matters of detail which seem to me to be of importance. We must have information about the nature of the adaptations which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in introducing the Clause. Are they geographical? Is there to be a line drawn from Douglas to Ramsey, and is there to be mustering on one side but not on the other? Is some special standard of law to be provided for Manxmen who are Home Guards which is not applicable to Home Guards in the ordinary way? These are important matters which raise important constitutional problems.

During the last war there was centred in the Isle of Man a large internment camp. It was necessary to staff it with people from Britain and Northern Ireland. What is the position to be now? Will there be a Home Guard made up of Manxmen and of people from the mainland and will these two bodies be subject to separate laws? What is the contemplated variation in the law to be?

The Under-Secretary seemed to know little about the Bill or of the courtesy due to the House of Commons when an important discussion is taking place. He said quite casually "We do not think that when we muster the Home Guard it will be more than a local operation." If all that is true why pass the Bill at all? Is it really contemplated that there is to be an attack on the Isle of Man? Or is it the case that we will never have to muster the Home Guard, and that the Clause is nugatory and indicates the purpose of trimming up the different islands and that the Government have covered them all as far as they can. What foreign power is it contemplated will attempt to seize the Isle of Man and result in the mustering of the Home Guard there?

We must face this problem of delegated legislation, which seems to be of fundamental importance. In Clause 1 we are told that Orders in Council can be made that will virtually alter the law of the country. We were told by the Solicitor- General, I think inaccurately, that martial law is to apply in peace-time to everyone enrolling in the Home Guard—[Interruption.] Well, military law, but I think the term I used was a better one because it was to apply to civilians. Is it to apply to the Isle of Man?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Head

Surely it is obvious to the hon. Gentleman that if it is decided to form a Home Guard in the Isle of Man then on those occasions on which it is mustered its members will be subject to military law.

Mr. Hale

The right hon. Gentleman should acquaint himself with what his hon. and learned Friend said. He has now said "If it is mustered." We were told that whenever it was on duty in peace-time it would be subject to military law. Is this contemplated for the Isle of Man? Surely we are entitled to know. Why is it necessary to have a special set of rules for the Isle of Man? Before these rules are made will there be consultations with the representative Government there or with the organised labour organisations?

Is no one prepared to answer? Or has no one thought of it? Is this Clause to act as a cover for lack of thought and is somebody to think of it later? Do the Government know? The point I wish to make, which I believe is one of substance, is that, if they do know, it is a gross discourtesy for the Under-Secretary to get up and purport to answer my right hon. Friend in a few short sentences absolutely devoid of any information, and attempt to give the impression that he is replying to the Debate.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

One example of the things that I underlined in my speech is that there would be consultations, and that is the essence of the whole thing.

Mr. Hale

I think it is ungenerous of the hon. Gentleman to say that, although I did invite him to reply. Every reply he gives makes the situation worse. What does he say now? That with this sovereign Government, after the passage of this Bill, there will be consultations? What is the use of consulting them after the passage of this Bill?

What is the use of saying that His Majesty's Government will consult them after passing the Bill making the necessary provisions? At what stage are these consultations to take place? With whom will they take place? By whom will the discussions be conducted? Is it really the point that there has been no communication at all with the Tynwald? Is it really the case that the House of Keys has never been asked for its views about this Bill, or the view of the Legislature about it?

If that is so, I would really have to consider consulting with my right hon. Friends in order to see if we could not move the Adjournment of the House at this moment to raise this very sorry and discourteous—[Laughter.] I think it is shocking that hon. Members should laugh when I am referring to a Legislature which is older than this House, and just as proud.

It really is nonsense if it really is the view of hon. Members opposite that, because a place is small, we should treat it with discourtesy, and should not have regard to history, tradition, rights and privileges which have existed all these years. If we treat it like this because it is a little island, I say it is a contemptible attitude to take. I hope I am misrepresenting people when I say that, although it appeared from the expressions of some hon. Members opposite that that is the view they are now taking.

I come back to the point of substance. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman formally—and I hope he will deal with the matter himself, because we appreciate his answers much more than those of the Under-Secretary —what he has in his mind. The Committee is entitled to ask what he means by the use of the word "adaptations." The Committee is clearly entitled, not merely to request, but to demand from one of His Majesty's Ministers, who is asking the Committee to pass this Clause, to tell us what he means by it and what he has in mind. We are entitled to say to the Executive that they have no right to come to the House and ask for a blank cheque on a matter of legislation. We are entitled to say "What is it that you have in mind?"

I want to be quite fair about this; indeed, I want to be almost yielding about it. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the details, but to give to the Committee some explanation why it is necessary to differentiate at all. What is the reason—if I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment—why it is necessary to pass laws which apply to Englishmen and Scotsmen, and, under a later Amendment, to people in Northern Ireland? Why do they not apply to the Isle of Man?

What is in his mind? Why is this Clause drawn in a special way? What are the adaptations of the orders that he desires to make? Are they geographical, statistical or legal? How do they affect military law? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not sit back and treat the Committee with contempt? It would be a matter of gross impropriety if the Committee permitted the passage of this Clause without any explanation at all.

6.45 a.m.

I could not imagine any greater discourtesy to this House and to those who have sat here for many hours without receiving an explanation of these difficult matters than if the right hon. Gentleman were to sit back and say, "I am not prepared to give an explanation of any kind. I demand by the force of the majority, this transient majority, which we hold at the moment the right to rush this Bill through the House without explanation of any kind." I hope that the right hon Gentleman who up to now has treated the House with courtesy will not take that view. I ask him to tell us, because we are entitled to know. If there is anybody on the Government Front Bench who knows, please pass the word along. Surely somebody knows.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

The Minister of Defence, perhaps.

Mr. Harold Davies

On a point of order. In view of the grave public importance of the revelation of the fact that there has been a cold, callous and incisive step into the civil liberties of the island with which this Clause is concerned, or the possibility of it, and as the Government there have not been consulted, and as under the Constitution of that island they cannot be controlled by this Parliament unless specially mentioned in an Act of this Parliament, can you give me guidance, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and say whether or not I am empowered to move the Adjournment of the Committee on this matter of grave public importance?

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot accept that Motion in any event while a speech is being made. It is out of order to move it during the course of a speech.

Mr. Hale

No one wants to exacerbate feeling. I am unduly bashful about this, but if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give a reply on this, I will willingly give way at once.

Mr. Head

The object of this Clause was, I should have thought, perfectly clear, but I appreciate that there seems to be considerable anxiety and misunderstanding about what it is for. This Bill was brought in to enable the United Kingdom to form this limited voluntary Home Guard now within the United Kingdom. As all hon. Members know, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reminded us before, it does not include the Isle of Man. We did not want to leave out the Isle of Man —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for the very good reason that the Isle of Man might want to have a Home Guard.

They might not necessarily want to create a Home Guard now, at the same time as us, but they may want to do so some time in the next few years. We wished, therefore, to include the Isle of Man so that they could say either that they do not wish to have anything to do with this, or so that they could say that they had decided to have a Home Guard, or, again, that they will have a Home Guard, but that, owing to their own Parliament and to their own customs and laws, they will adapt our Regulations to fit in with their domestic Regulations, and, therefore, will change them where they are applicable to the island.

The whole object of this Clause is to say to the island, "If you do not want a Home Guard, do not have a Home Guard, and if you do want one you can change the law so that you can decide in your own ancient House of Keys your own ancient rules, Regulations and laws." That is what has been done, and for all I know the Home Office has started consultations. But I cannot find that out because people are not on the telephone at this particular hour.

I would point out to hon. Members that it is not really germane to this point. Consultations between the Home Office and the Isle of Man cannot harm the island. Supposing we pass this Bill and this Clause, what harm are we going to do to the Isle of Man? They can say they will not have a Home Guard, or they can say they will have one adopted to their own special circumstances. They have these alternatives. There is nothing brutal or Prussian in this mention of the Isle of Man.

Mr. Hale

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but ii raises two or three important points. The first point is that he says that he cannot give the House information because people are not available at this hour of the morning. It was precisely for that reason that some eight or nine hours ago we moved to report Progress so that the debate could be conducted at a time when more information was available. The right hon. Gentleman refused to accept that Motion, which was in the best interests of the Government, which obviously was flagging and was not informed on all matters. Therefore, we have to face this situation at this late hour of the morning, trying with all speed to dispose of the matters before us.

The right hon. Gentleman said something which I think raises a serious issue. He says that this Clause is a mere facade, and that its intention is something different. He is saying that after this House has passed this Bill we shall consult the Isle of Man and they can take it or leave it, and if they take it they can alter it as they like, put it into their own form and pass their own Regulations.

These are important matters. Then there is the question of internment camps in the island in the event of another war. There are many Right-wing factors in this country which are developing such tendencies that I can visualise large internment camps if another war comes. How are these camps to be managed? Obviously they cannot be managed by the local Home Guard. People would have to go over from Britain. As I understand it there is no option about the matter in England. In the Isle of Man there will be an option.

Mr. Harold Davies

This is an important point. The Tynwald is bound by an Act of this Parliament if the Isle of Man is specially mentioned in an Act of this Parliament. I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman expecting a constructive answer that would clear up the matter. This is, to me, an important point of civil liberty. If once this provision is accepted by this Committee tonight, and is mentioned in this Bill when it becomes an Act, nothing else can be done about it, and without consultation the Isle of Man is bound by what we have said at this unearthly hour.

Mr. Hale

I am sure both sides of the Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), for his intervention and I thank him for drawing my attention to the matter. I am bound to say that although the point he makes is very important I do not fully comprehend it. I suggest he might develop it more fully, Mr. Hopkin Morris, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye.

Mr. Harold Davies

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to give way again?

Mr. Hale

, No, I do not wish to delay the Committee unnecessarily for a second. Perhaps my hon. Friend will develop the point and we shall be able to consider it at leisure if and when he catches your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I suggest to the Secretary of State for War that he should really try to consider the matter and give the Committee a little more information about what he has in mind.

It is not good enough to ask the Committee to accept this Clause in a form by means of which the Government are saying, "We may not want it. It may be we may not want it for years" and, on the Kathleen Mavourneen principle, "it may be for ever." It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to come here and say, "It is very late. I have not all the information and cannot inform the Committee."

Mr. Head

I am not saying I have not all the information and it is very late, and I am not making excuses. This type of Clause has been introduced before. It is entirely permissive. It is not forcing the Isle of Man into taking this step. If the Isle of Man wishes to have a Home Guard it can have it. Therefore, this Clause is inserted in the Bill to make its purpose permissive to the Isle of Man if it wants to adopt this Measure. If it does not, the Clause does not commit the island in any way.

Mr. Hale

What the right hon. Gentleman said in a previous intervention was that he could not communicate, that he could not get the exceedingly important information about what consultations had taken place with the Isle of Man because the Home Secretary was not available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know what the Home Secretary is doing. After all we are to have a long holiday and it would be more courteous if more Ministers were available to deal with these important points.

This matter has been raised often since we first moved to report Progress. We have used up the whole of yesterday—Sic transit Tuesday—and now it is seven o'clock on Wednesday morning and we are still discussing Clause 2. Really, before it passes the Clause, the Committee has the right to know what is the meaning put upon the Clause by His Majesty's Ministers, what their intentions are, what are the Orders in Council in general which it is designed to promote, in this connection, and how the Clause will be used.

7.0 a.m.

I am bound to say that at the moment I remain completely unsatisfied by the explanation given by His Majesty's Ministers. I suggest they should try to get in the next few minutes a little more information and try to render the great courtesy to the Committee of telling us what they have in mind, if anything.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 116.

Division No. 14.]	AYES	[5.33 a.m.
Acland, Sir Richard	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Pearson, A.
Adams, Richard	Grey, C. F.	Peart, T. F.
Albu, A. H.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Popplewell, E.
Awbery, S. S.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Baird, J.	Hamilton, W. W.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bartley, P.	Hayman, F. H.	Proctor, W. T.
Bence, C. R.	Herbison, Miss M.	Rhodes, H.
Benn, Wedgwood	Holman, P.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Beswick, F.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bing, G. H. C.	Hubbard, T. F.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Blenkinsop, A.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Blyton, W. R.	Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire)	Short, E. W.
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Bowden, H. W.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Bowles, F. G.	Janner, B.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Jeger, George (Goole)	Slater, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Steele, T.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Callaghan, L. J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Swingler, S. T.
Chapman, W. D.	Kinley, J.	Sylvester, G. O.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Clunie, J.	Lewis, Arthur	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Collick, P. H.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Thomas Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Logan, D. G.	Watkins, T. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Weitzman, D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Delargy, H. J.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	West, D. G.
Dodds, N. N.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Driberg, T. E. N.	Manuel, A. C.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mayhew, C. P.	Wigg, G. E. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Messer, F.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mikardo, Ian	Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Fernyhough, E.	Mitchison, G. R.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Field, Capt. W. J.	Monslow, W.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Fienburgh, W.	Moody, A. S.	Wyatt, W. L.
Finch, H. J.>	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Forman, J. C.	Oldfield, W. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Orbach, M.	Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Hannan.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Oswald, T.
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Channon, H.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Bennett, William (Woodside)	Clarke Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Alport, C. J. M.	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Birch, Nigel	Cole, N. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Bishop, F. P.	Colegate, W. A.
Arbuthnot, John	Black, C. W.	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bossom, A. C.	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Baldwin, A. E.	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Crouch, R. F.
Banks, Col. C.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Barber, A. P. L.	Bullard, D. G.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Barlow, Sir John	Butcher, H. W.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Carson, Hon. E.	De la Bère, R.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Cary, Sir R.	Deedes, W. F.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Donner, P. W.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Doughty, C. J. A.	Linstead, H. N.	Scott, R. Donald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Drayson, G. B.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Drewe, C.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Duthie, W. S.	Mackeson Brig. H. R.	Soames, Capt. C.
Finlay, G. B.	McKibbin A. J.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Fisher, Nigel	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Speir, R. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fort, R.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Stevens, G. P.
Godber, J. B.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Gough, C. F. H.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Storey, S.
Gower, H. R.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Studholme, H. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maude, Angus	Summers, G. S.
Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Sutcliffe, H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Hay, John	Mellor, Sir John	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Molson, A. H. E.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Tilney, John
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nicholson, G.	Turner, H. F. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Turton, R. H.
Hope, Lord John	Oakshott, H. D.	Vane, W. M. F.
Hopkinson, Henry	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Horobin, I. M.	Partridge, E.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hurd, A. R.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Pitman, I. J.	Watkinson, H. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Wellwood, W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Williams, Charles (Torquay)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)	Redmayne, M.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)	Wills, G.
Kaberry, D.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Lambert, Hon. G.	Roper, Sir Harold	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lambton, Viscount	Russell, R. S.	Mr. Vosper and Mr. Heath.

Division No. 15.]	AYES	7.0 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Partridge, E.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Gough, C. F. H.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Alpert, C. J. M.	Gower, H. R.	Peyton, J. W. W.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)	Pitman I. J.
Arbuthnot, John	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Powell, J. Enoch
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Hay, John	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Astor, Hon J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Remnant, Hon. P.
Baldwin, A. E.	Heath, Edward	Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Banks, Col. C.	Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Barber, A. P. L.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Rodgers John (Sevenoaks)
Barlow, Sir John	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Roper, Sir Harold
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hope, Lord John	Russell, R. S.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Hopkinson, Henry	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Horobin, I. M.	Scott, R. Donald
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Birch, Nigel	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Bishop, F. P.	Hurd, A. R.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Black, C. W.	Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Soames, Capt. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Speir, R. M.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Bullard, D. G.	Kaberry, D.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Butcher, H. W.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Stevens, G. P.
Carson, Hon. E.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Cary, Sir R.	Lambton, Viscount	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Channon, H.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Storey, S.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Studholme, H. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Summers, G. S.
Cole, N. J.	Linstead, H. N.	Sutcliffe, H.
Colegate, W. A.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Tilney, John
Crouch, R. F.	McKibbin, A. J.	Turner, H. F. L.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Turton, R. H.
Crowder Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)	Vane, W. M. F.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.
De la Bère, R.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Vosper, D. F.
Deedes, W. F.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfieid	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Donner, P. W.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Doughty, C. J. A.	Maude, Angus	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Watkinson, H. A.
Drayson, G. B.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Drewe, C.	Mellor, Sir John	Wellwood, W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Molson, A. H. E.	Williams, Charles (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Finlay, G. B.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Fisher, Nigel	Nicholson, G.	Wills, G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fort, R.	Oakshott, H. D.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Godber, J. B.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and
		Mr. Redmayne.

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Field, Capt. W. J.
Adams, Richard	Burton, Miss F. E.	Fienburgh, W.
Albu, A. H.	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Finch, H. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Callaghan, L. J.	Forman, J. C.
Awbery, S. S.	Chapman, W. D.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Baird, J.	Chetwynd, G. R.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bartley, P.	Clunie, J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Bence, C. R.	Collick, P. H.	Grey, C. F.
Benn, Wedgwood	Craddock, George (Bradford, S)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Beswick, F.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Blackburn, F.	Delargy, H. J.	Hamilton, W. W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Dodds, N. N.	Hannan, W.
Blyton, W. R.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hayman, F. H.
Boardman, H.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Herbison, Miss M.
Bowden, H. W.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Holman, P.
Bowles, F. G.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hubbard, T. F.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Fernyhough, E.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Monslow, W.	Steele, T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Moody, A. S.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Janner, B.	Orbach, M.	Swingler, S. T.
Jeger, George (Goole)	Oswald, T.	Sylvester, G. O.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Peart, T. F.	Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Popplewell, E.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
King, Dr. H. M.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Watkins, T. E.
Kinley, J.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	West, D. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Proctor, W. T.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Lewis, Arthur	Rhodes, H.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Wigg, G. E. C.
Logan, D. G.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Short, E. W.	Wyatt, W. L.
Manuel, A. C.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Messer, F.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mikardo, Ian	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Mr. Arthur Allan and Mr. Holmes.
Mitchison, G. R.	Slater, J.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 116.

Division No. 16]	AYES	[7.10 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Duthie, W. S.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Finlay, G. B.	Maude, Angus
Alport, C. J. M.	Fisher, Nigel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Fort, R.	Mellor, Sir John
Arbuthnot John	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Molson, A. H. E.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Godber, J. B.	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Nicholson, G.
Baldwin, A. E.	Gough, C. F. H.	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Banks, Col. C.	Gower, H. R.	Oakshott, H. D.
Barber, A. P. L.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Barlow, Sir John	Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Partridge, E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Hay, John	Perkins, W. R. D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Peyton, J. W. W.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Pitman, I. J.
Birch, Nigel	Hirst, Geoffrey	Powell, J. Enoch
Bishop, F. P.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Black, C. W.	Hope, Lord John	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Bossom, A. C.	Hopkinson, Henry	Redmayne, M.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Horobin, I. M.	Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Bullard, D. G.	Hurd, A. R.	Roper, Sir Harold
Butcher, H. W.	Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Russell, R. S.
Carson, Hon. E.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cary, Sir R.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Channon, H.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Scott, R. Donald
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cole, N. J.	Kaberry, D.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Colegate, W. A.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Soames, Capt. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lambton, Viscount	Spearman, A. C. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Speir, R. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Crouch, R. F.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)	Linstead, H. N.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Stevens, G. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
De la Bère, R.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Stoddart-Scott. Col. M.
Deedes, W. F.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Storey, S.
Digby, S. Wingfield	McKibbin, A. J.	Studholme, H. G.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Summers, G. S.
Donner, P. W.	MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)	Sutcliffe, H.
Doughty, C. J. A.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Drayson, G. B.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Drewe, C.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Tilney, John
Turner, H. F. L.	Walker-Smith, D. C.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Turton, R. H.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Vane, W. M. F.	Ward, Mitt I. (Tynemouth)	Wills, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.	Watkinson, H. A.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Vosper, D. F.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	Wellwood, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)	Williams, Charles (Torquay)	Brig. Mackeson and Mr. Heath
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Forman, J. C.	Orbach, M.
Adams, Richard	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Oswald, T.
Albu, A. H.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Peart, T. F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Grey, C. F.	Popplewell, E.
Awbery, S. S.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Baird, J.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bartley, P.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Proctor, W. T.
Bence, C. R.	Hamilton, W. W.	Rhodes, H.
Benn, Wedgwood	Hayman, F. H.	Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Beswick, F.	Herbison, Miss M.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bing, G. H. C.	Holman, P.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Blackburn, F.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Blenkinsop, A.	Hubbard, T. F.	Short, E. W.
Blyton, W. R.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Bowden, H. W.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Bowles, F. G.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Slater, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Janner, B.	Steele, T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Jones, David, (Hartlepool)	Swingler, S. T.
Callaghan, L. J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Sylvester, G. O.
Chapman, W. D.	King, Dr. H. M.	Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Kinley, J.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Clunie, J.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Collick, P. H.	Lewis, Arthur	Watkins, T. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	West, D. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Logan, D. G.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Delargy, H. J.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Wigg, G. E. C.
Dodds, N. N.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Manuel, A. C.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Messer, F.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mikardo, Ian	Wyatt, W. L.
Fernyhough, E.	Mitchison, G. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.	Monslow, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fienburgh, W.	Moody, A. S.	Mr. Kenneth Robinson and Mr. Hannan.
Finch, H. J.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

I must at this stage enter a protest at the manner in which this Bill is being rushed through Committee. The haste displayed by hon. Members opposite who are most concerned in this Bill has indeed shocked hon. Members on this side, and if it has not made a similar impact on the minds of hon. Members opposite, they are as impervious to right and proper feeling in matters of this sort as anything I have ever imagined. In fact, I feel some of them are shocked at what has occurred. I do not include new Members. They will learn in due course something about the traditions of the House and its customs. Surely the older Members and right hon. Gentlemen who are members of the Government must recall what happened in the last Parliament.

I cannot imagine that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would ever have tolerated the lack of courtesy displayed by the Under-Secretary, the casual nature of the observations that fell from the lips of the Attorney-General when replying to some points raised by my hon. Friends and, in the later stages, the attitude of the Secretary of State himself. He began the proceedings suave, self-assured, anxious to please, but there has been a complete change in his attitude. I am disappointed in him. This is not a good thing for Parliamentary debate, because we shall have to associate with each other—of course in our respective geographical positions —from time to time. These matters will not be settled as a result of the moving of the Closure. There will be a hangover which will continue for some time. It is better to foster good relations at this stage.

The reason I am shocked and indignant is because the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure after about only an hour's debate on an important Clause. If I had taken part in the discussion I should have expressed strong dissent at the action of the right hon. Gentleman in consulting representatives from nearly all constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales on the Home Guard Bill—as he has done by bringing it before the House—but having no consultations of any kind with the House of Representatives in the Isle of Man. He will actually consult the other place—not a democratic assembly at all—but the Isle of Man is not to be consulted before the Bill becomes a fait accompli. [An HON. MEMBER: "Order."] I am in order in referring to the other place. I am not doing so in derogatory terms.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

I made an observation about order, but I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about another place. I wish to know whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman apparently to discuss the merits of the Clause on the Motion before the Committee.

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman is giving his reasons for the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Shinwell

I refrained from discussing the merits of the proposal; I merely mentioned it by way of illustration. I do beg the Leader of the House to consider the position. I cannot imagine why there is such haste to proceed with this Measure. I have asked several hon. Gentlemen about it and questioned right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not furnish a convincing reply, because, it seems to me, the Report stage cannot be taken today as was the intention. The Government have discovered that that is impossible. In these circumstances, as the Report stage is to be delayed, we might adjourn the debate after progress has been reported and the remainder of the Committee stage might he taken on some other occasion.

This proposal appears to me to be a reasonable one. Let it not be forgotten that we have sat here more than 15½ hours, and it is a severe task for hon. Gentlemen to have to undertake. We have kept hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that bench during that time. Surely they will have to repair to their departments to undertake the tasks allotted to them. They must have some rest and nourishment. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends made a suggestion about red meat. That is quite out of order. So far as I know, there is no red meat in the Bill. Having sat for 15 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seventeen hours."] Is it 17 hours—as much as that? I feel just as fresh. I may have to make an appearance in the barber's shop downstairs when it opens. [Interruption.]

Mr. Percy Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to suggest that my right hon. Friend should go to the barber's shop and have his throat cut?

The Chairman

I did not hear the remark, but if it was made it should be withdrawn.

Brigadier Clarke

I withdraw.

Mr. Shinwell

If the observation came from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents a Portsmouth division I can understand it. He knows better than any hon. Member in the Committee why he indulges in observations of that kind in relation to myself. He knows what I had to do with him when I was Secretary of State for War, and he has never recovered from what happened to him on that occasion.

7.30 a.m.

Brigadier Clarke

Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in showing how proud he was of his bad days, so far as I was concerned?

Mr. Shinwell

I should not tell the rest of the story at this stage, but it is a very interesting story. I think it would be out of order at this stage, but I can say this. It accounts for the somewhat malicious attitude adopted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman towards myself and my right hon. Friend who was previously Secretary of State for War. Therefore, I discount him and his observations and interjections.

Brigadier Clarke

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that, in order to get me away from my constituency, he moved me from Salisbury to Burton-on-Trent?

Mr. Shinwell

No, Sir Charles, not under extreme provocation will I tell the story at this stage. There will come a time when the truth can be disclosed, not altogether to the advantage of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and there I will leave it for the moment.

However, I do think that, having gone through the night—it is now said that it is 17 hours—and in view of the physical condition of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—I am sure they must be feeling very tired—

Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell

Not tired? If they are not tired, they certainly look very tired—extremely tired. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War looks positively ill at this stage, and, as for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, he is having his wrath to keep him warm. I think the Leader of the House is furious with us. He did not expect this to happen, but it is entirely attributable to the lack of preparation on the part of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. If he had considered this Bill a little more carefully and had given a little more time to its preparation, and had given the Committee a considered and well thought out Measure, the Government would have avoided all this controversy.

In the circumstances, I think it would be wise for the Leader of the House to agree to the Motion to report Progress. It is now 25 minutes to eight o'clock. It will give hon. and right hon. Members an opportunity of getting a bath, having a wash and shaving, even if they do not cut their throats, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to get some food and to come back refreshed, ready and able to undertake their Parliamentary duties. That is the sort of thing we want.

I hope that, in the circumstances, in putting this Motion to the Committee—subject to what the Leader of the House has to say about it—you, Sir Charles, will afford an opportunity—and I agree that it is in your discretion—for this Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again to be debated by hon. Members.

Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman

Order. Surely, I may be given an opportunity of putting the Motion? The Question is that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Mr. Crookshank.

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am much obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite; they recognise at once what their leader did not, that I am not in the least furious. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have gone out of his way to make such very rude remarks to my right hon. and hon. Friends in charge of the Bill. He accused one of lack of courtesy, another of casualness. I do not think those observations were deserved, and I felt I must say that, and I do say it, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not been here."] Indeed, I have Just because I sit at the end sometimes, and not here, it does not make any difference. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has caught my eye several times when some of the remarks were passing across the Floor of the Chamber.

The right hon. Gentleman complained of the rush. He said that everybody has been shocked at the rush which has gone on, and suggested that my hon. Friends were all in a state of shock at the rush. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paralysed."] If the progress which has been made tonight is to be called "rush," then that is a new form of language which might very well shock anybody. But, of course, the fact of the matter is that this is an important Bill and an urgent one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

The right hon. Gentleman professes that he does not think it is. On the other hand, we do, because we consider that the possibility of having a Home Guard, which is what this Bill sets out to do, is an essential link in our chain of preparedness. The defence programme having been accepted by all parties, we found on coming into office that there was what we consider to be a link missing in the chain, we thought it our immediate duty to bring it before Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite can disagree with me, but I was asked why it is being done, and I am giving the explanation. We found that this link was not there.

Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth)

It was in the Conservatives' Manifesto before they came here.

Mr. Crookshank

We said in the Manifesto that we intended to set about having a Home Guard, but the urgency of it was, of course, that nothing had been done excepting—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite never allow me to finish a sentence. I was asked why this was brought forward. I have said that what was already done was insufficient for the purpose urgently needed, and that is why we brought the Bill forward and why we consider it should be passed through all its stages and be enacted before Christmas. If this is not done and if it is left until the spring, by the time we get any enrolling under way we shall be a long way into 1952. Because we hold the view that this is an essential part of our defence programme we are asking Parliament to pass the Bill now. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He may not like it, but I have given it to him.

With regard to further business, it is quite true that if the right hon. Gentleman calls the business which has been transacted during the last 16 hours rush, I do not think I could quite accept that description of it.

Mr. Shinwell

I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I did not describe, and could not possibly describe, the business transacted in the last 16 or 17 hours as rush. The business has been, I agree, delayed, but that is entirely attributable to the way in which this Bill has been presented and to the unsatisfactory answers that came from the right hon. Gentleman, from the Under-Secretary of State, and from the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General

I demand to know what are the inadequacies which the right hon. Gentleman alleges against me. Allegations have been made against me by the right hon. Gentleman, first, that I made casual answers. I ask for particulars of these. Then, secondly, he has made an even stronger allegation, and I ask him to justify it.

Mr. Shinwell

What surprises me is that the hon. and learned Attorney- General should wax so indignant when I suggest that his answers were casual in character. That is precisely what I said. I made no attack on his character, legal or personal. If it were in order I would be only too delighted, having looked up the record, to acquaint him of the casual nature of his replies. But perhaps that may be left for some other occasion, perhaps the Report stage, if Mr. Speaker regards it as being in order.

What I said to the Leader of the House was that this Bill had been rushed. I have some knowledge of these matters which I gathered when I was at the Ministry of Defence, and I am bound to say that it surprises me that this Bill came forward and that we were asked to accept it almost in the twinkling of an eye. I can hardly believe that it is so important in relation to our defence preparations at this stage. I could understand it if the Secretary of State wished to add to our strategic reserves or increase the numbers of the Territorial Army. Those are important matters. This Bill, which only proposes to enrol 150,000 men, or thereabouts, can hardly be regarded as so important in relation to the build-up of our defence organisation. That is what I meant by saying that it was rushed.

Mr. Crookshank

That interruption is over. I was very careful to take down the right hon. Gentleman's words, and I think that in two references the right hon. Gentleman used the word "rushed" in different connections. As he repudiates it I accept what he says.

Mr. Shinwell

Will the right hon. Gentleman send up to the Official Gallery for it?

Mr. Crookshank

That is hardly necessary, for I say that I accept his repudiation. I was saying that we had made some progress during the night, and we have let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen discuss the matter at length. The motion "That the Question be now put" has been sparingly used during the evening. It has been used only four times during 16 hours of debate. Clause 2 was not seen for the first time in this Bill. It is not the first time in history that such a Clause has arisen in a Bill. The point is now what the House will proceed to do.

7.45 a.m.

Earlier in the debate right hon. Gentlemen opposite were very vocal in saying it would be an outrage if we took the Report stage the day after the Committee stage because there would not be time to see the Amendments put down. In view of that I thought we would now be able to proceed to finish the Committee stage, leave the Wednesday Sitting, and have the Report stage on Thursday and thereby facilitate the wish expressed by the Opposition. I think that with a little good will and possibly a little more speed than has been shown in recent hours that programme might well be carried out. If that is not done I do not see that hon. Members opposite can have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments on the Order Paper and have full time[HON. MEMBERS: Next week."] No. I have already made that point clear.

We desire, if we can, to have this Bill through the House this week. That proposal was made last Thursday. No protest was then made when there was still opportunity to rearrange Business. No protest was made either outside the House through the usual channels or inside the House when I announced the Business.

Mr. Wigg

The second point is a perfectly fair point. It is true that no protest was made last Thursday, but the Second Reading took place after the announcement of Business for the week and it was wholly due to the incompetent and provocative nature of the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for War that a great deal of this trouble was caused. If we have not gone as far as the Leader of the House wished, he can apportion the blame between the Under-Secretary on the one hand and his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on the other.

Mr. Crookshank

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in intervening took the opportunity once more to make those derogatory remarks about my hon. Friend that I have already repudiated. But he accepts that this was the plan and not only for today but for other days of the week. The Committee might proceed and see how far we can get with the very objective hon. Members want—to get the Bill through this stage so that they may have enough time to see the Government Amendments and put down their own afterwards. I must warn hon. Members opposite, of course, that the rearrangement of Business will have its consequences on Thursday. Obviously

the consequences are that they asked for the debate for next Thursday and we gave them Government time for it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Too clever by half.

An Hon. Member

Afraid of it?

Mr. Crookshank

Indeed, we are not afraid of the food debate at all. Government business, by order of the House, has precedence at present, and this is Government business. Therefore, it will have to have precedence over other business. But all these difficulties could be overcome with a little good will.

Mr. Harold Davies

Why not another week.

Mr. Crookshank

We are not discussing another week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, we are."] We are discussing the business of this Sitting at the moment. Therefore, I suggest that now, if the right hon. Member for Easington withdraws or votes on this Motion we shall then see how we get on, and if we conclude this Sitting there will be time for the Amendments to be seen—which the Opposition asked us to arrange. I do not suppose that will satisfy the right hon. Member for Easington because he does not seem to be in a mood very easy to satisfy. I think it would be possible to finish the Committee stage at this Sitting and I hope we can apply our minds to that purpose.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

The proceedings have been much prolonged because my right hon. and hon. Friends have practically been drafting the bill. That would not have occurred if the Bill had been thought of before the Government came into office. The proposal for the Bill was put into the King's Speech and something had to be produced.

I cannot see what the hurry is. The enrolment of the Home Guard cannot take place until a large number of regulations are made, and even if the Bill had not gone through, the regulations could be laid while the House is not sitting and the final stages could be proceeded with after Christmas. All I can gather about the reason for urgency is what the Leader of the House has just said, with the threat which he made, in effect, to the Opposition about business in the second half of Thursday. He puts Government prestige on a Bill for which everybody agrees there is no urgency in front of matters of great public concern, which were to be discussed on Thursday.

I should have thought that while we are not sitting the War Office could improve the wording of some of the Clauses, and certainly they could get on with the machinery and orders. I suggest to the Leader of the House that we might take the whole thing at a slower pace and produce a better Bill. I believe my right hon. and hon. Friends would be able to produce more Amendments, given time, that would improve the Bill, which in these circumstances is a horribly botched up affair.

Mr. J. Hudson

I made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman last night to consider this matter in an amicable spirit. The right hon. Gentleman did not find it possible to meet me or anyone else. He has now had all this experience and comes again with not the slightest improvement in the offer he then made. In fact, we are worse off now by the threats he has used against us with reference to what shall happen on Thursday.

The right hon. Gentleman will take it well from me when I say I have been with him from the beginning of his career in this House; I have seen him rise to his present position. I would like to see him a success as Leader of the House, and I wish him well in the work he is called to do. I beg of him again to reconsider the issues we face. I do not think he is helping the Committee just now to get over the difficulties that seriously divide us. I felt that when he censured my right hon. Friend about the rather strong language he used about right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would have been wiser if he had taken into account that there was as much irritation offered to this side of the Committee by the attitude of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I observed that when the right hon. Gentleman was censuring my right hon. Friend, he did not find words to censure his own hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) for his throat-cutting expedition.

We can afford to be amused. I do not want to put the matter too tragically. I do not want to cut the right hon. Gentle- man's throat. What I want to get from him is a very great change in the attitude he has adopted. I ask him to consider again whether we can get on with a Bill which I know is important from his point of view, though I do not understand its importance. If I introduce a jarring note at this point, it is because I feel this Bill was never necessary and that it will be an aggravation of the situation that he hopes it will deal with. There is no point now in discussing that. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great opportunity. He has had it for a second time on this occasion, but I do not think he has taken it. I ask him to think again whether he cannot agree to accept the Motion which has been moved or, at any rate, take some other step by which we can bring our discussion to an end and continue it later when, I am sure, wiser counsels must prevail on all sides of the Committee.

Mr. M. Stewart

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has made much of the argument that the programme to complete this Bill up to the Report stage by Thursday of this week was agreed through what are known as the usual channels on Thursday of last week. Let us look at how much substance there is in that argument. The Government must have known, when they asked the Committee to take a Bill of this nature at that speed—to complete the Committee stage today, the Report stage and Third Reading tomorrow—that they were imposing upon themselves a very severe obligation to be as conciliatory and helpful to this side of the Committee as was humanly possible.

I think the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of this Bill will be bound to admit that during the Second Reading debate, although there was some sharp criticisms of the Government in general and, perhaps, of particular members of it, in the main the contributions made from this side were constructive and helpful. The obligation, therefore, rested all the more on the Government to maintain a constructive attitude.

Whether the Leader of the House likes it or not, we are bound to conclude that the answer we got at the end of that Second Reading debate was a serious breach of the implied obligation of the Government to be constructive and helpful, an obligation they ought to have observed if they wanted the agreed timetable to be kept. That was bad enough, but when we met yesterday afternoon to consider the Committee stage of this Bill, we were still anxious, for our part, to continue in a workmanlike manner and get the Committee stage through by a reasonable time. Anyone who turns to the Report of the earlier stages of this debate will see that that is so.

8.0 a.m.

We were pleased when the Secretary of State for War announced his acceptance of the first Amendment moved from this side of the Committee, and things seemed to be going well until the deplorable intervention of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he now? "]—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, has made the most striking commentary on his part in this matter by his absence for the greater part of the time since that deplorable contribution was made. That contribution shifted the debate into a considerable and unnecessary digression on constitutional matters, and, more seriously still, it injured the whole tone of the debate.

Then, perhaps, there came a turn for the better. When we were debating the Amendment, to which we on this side attached so much importance, relating to industrial disputes, an opportunity came when the Secretary of State for War had to reply to that when, if he had more fully realised the Government's obligation to be constructive and helpful, if he had shown rather greater imagination, and if he had been prepared to go even a few inches further on that issue, we might again have secured a better tone to the whole debate and have made better progress.

The Leader of the House has quarrelled over the use of the term "rushed" by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), but the whole proceedings on the Bill have been an example of the homely proverb, "More haste, less speed." Had there been less rush in the preparation of the Bill and more thought devoted to it, we should, in shorter time, have made further progress with it.

I do not wish to attempt to re-debate the Clause which has just been declared to stand part of the Bill, while speaking on this Motion, but there is one comment that, I think, I am entitled to make on it because it is so much in point. It illustrates the muddle into which the Government are getting over the Bill by the way in which they have handled it. In the Clause which has just stood part of the Bill, we have declared that the Act is to apply to the Isle of Man, but I wonder very much whether the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary, who are in charge of the Bill, realise what by now they have managed to do in the Bill.

They have got in one part of the Bill a statement whereby men cannot be called to do service away from their homes; and, following a promise by the Under-Secretary, there is to be in another part of the Bill an undertaking whereby men cannot serve outside the United Kingdom. Where are the unfortunate Manxmen to serve? If they serve in the Island, they are serving outside the United Kingdom and disobeying one proviso of the Bill. If they serve outside the Island, they are disobeying the other proviso.

The Under-Secretary will tell me that this can soon be put right, but the interesting thing—I do not think they will deny this—is that until I pointed it out to them, they were not in the least aware that that knot had been tied in the procedure on the Bill. I have not the skill in discovering these matters that belongs to some of my hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). If I can discover that one tangle, it is extremely likely by now that there is any amount of muddle in the Bill that needs to be straightened out.

I appeal to the Leader of the House, in the light of those facts: Is it not reasonable that we should have now a certain breathing space in which not only can hon. Members in all parts of the Committee refresh themselves, but the Government can comb out the tangle into which they have, mainly by themselves but with some unfortunate assistance from the hon. Member for Croydon. East, now managed to get the Bill?

That could be done very easily. The Leader of the House rather disingenuously tried to detach the question of the timetable for the Bill from the wider question of the length of time that the House is to sit before Christmas. Those questions cannot be detached, because when the right hon. Gentleman says, "This is impossible. That cannot be done without taking away the opportunity of the House to debate the question of Christmas food bonuses," all those impossibilities and difficulties only arise because he is making it a fixed point in his calculations that the House must rise on 7th December.

I am bound to say that if we are put in a position whereby the Government use the difficulties they have largely created on this Bill as a convenient device for dodging the debate on Christmas bonuses, and at the same time insist that the House should rise on 7th December—and the right hon. Gentleman will argue that as speciously as he argues many other things —the main factor that will stand out in the minds of the people in the country will be that the House has risen for seven weeks, yet the Government say there is no time to get necessary business through. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again, to try to break the rigid timetable that it has been attempted to impose upon this House and give us an opportunity of straightening out the difficulties woven into this Bill. Then we could approach it again, as we on this side of the Committee would wish, as an agreed measure, which both sides of the Committee want to see put into as workmanlike and effective a form as possible.

Mr. Driberg

I hope the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State do not feel themselves to be rigidly tied by the form of words they themselves have put in the very first line of Clause 3. It would be quite wrong for me to discuss it at this stage, but hon. Members will notice that according to this first line: This Act may be cited as the Home Guard Act, 1951. When I read that, it struck me as just a trifle presumptuous. It was assuming that in the very few days that remained before the right hon. Gentleman sends Parliament packing for nearly two months, they would get the Bill through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. So they put Home Guard Act, 1951—not as might be thought more probable, the Home Guard Act, 1952. It was only ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 14th November. 1951, so it was really assuming rather a lot in view of their very narrow majority in the House.

I hope they will not be too proud to accept an Amendment about the timetable. They have had to accept, in form or substance, several Amendments in the course of the Committee proceedings, and I am sure they would have the sense to amend the timetable in some way in order to leave us a little more elbow room and margin for manœuvre and proper consideration for the remaining Clauses of this Bill. I hope that we can consider this Bill when we resume after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Wyatt

I remember often in Parliaments since the war listening to hon. Members now on the Government side putting forward earnest pleas that we should not continue discussing legislation all through the night because, they said, it meant bad legislation. I remember often feeling some sympathy with what I thought was a good constitutional point, and that the House of Commons could not possibly perform its work effectively after, say, three a.m. But we who are now in Opposition did have in those days the justification that we had a substantial programme of legislation. I thought that when the then Opposition came into office they would not do that sort of thing because they had so thoroughly disapproved of us doing it.

The first part of this Bill went extremely well. The Secretary of State, in the discussion on Clause 1 stand part, said he thought it had been substantially improved by Amendments from this side, the synthesis with Government Amendments, and the general pooling of ideas for a common end. The Government have conceded that working in co-operation with the Opposition we have improved Clause 1—surely a matter of considerable national importance. We got that in the early part of the sitting. I say frankly to the Government that it is unlikely if we go on sitting now that we shall improve the remainder of the Bill. The state of mind of the Opposition and of the Government is not such that it can really apply itself in a fresh and intelligent way to new Clauses and new ideas as it was able to do to Clause 1.

If we are going to persist in what is really something like lunacy in proceeding with the Bill until about two p.m. because of the obstinacy of the Government, who is going to suffer? It will be the people who will be affected by this Bill. It took us a long time to get Clause 1, but surely the Government are not going to say that it was wrong to have had that long discussion, when the result has been as admirable as the Secretary of State has said. If we are going on we are not going to get good Clauses and good Schedules. The Secretary of State, now yawning his head off, has lost the early boyish enthusiasm from the Bill which was so encouraging and helpful. To be frank, I think if we had a talk with him outside the House we would find he has lost the keen edge of his intellect. Z

8.15 a.m.

Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Wyatt

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to absorb the Amendments or understand them, or see which could be accepted or whether there is a point to be conceded or not. If the Leader of the House was right in saying they wanted to have the Bill this week or they would not get it by the new year and would not be able to start enrolment, I would say "All right. It means that we are to have an inferior second half of the Bill greatly inferior to the first part. We will accept that fact, and plunge on through the morning in this rather idiotic way which makes Parliament a laughing stock in the country."

There is a simple way out. The right hon. Gentleman has only to add one sitting day to Parliament. We are not asking for a week, but just one day or perhaps two. We might make it the last Saturday hon. Members would concede that. I see the Leader of the House smiling, but I am trying to make a serious case, because I am deeply concerned about this Bill. I want it to be efficient and the best possible, and I am trying to advance an argument by which we can get a good Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this simple way out. Let us go through the Bill properly. Let us go away and have some sleep instead of trying to deal with it in a dilapidated and haphazard fashion. We have still as many Amendments to deal with as we have already discussed. To carry on in this way is to produce legislation not as good as the country is entitled to expect.

Mr. Mikardo

I think that in his last observations to the House the Leader of the House fell below his normal form. Perhaps his great arm is feeling the weapon a little heavy for holding it for a long time. He tended a little to let the cat out of the bag and to display openly what he had only displayed inferentially in his earlier interventions, namely, that the real objection is not in pushing this Bill through do or die but to get rid of a different debate on a different subject of Thursday which seems to be embarrassing him.

Mr. Crookshank

Not at all.

Mr. Mikardo

I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in dissent. It seems to me that he kept going back to the interference with Thursday's business and the debate on the Christmas food bonuses as if he was mesmerised by the subject.

A little while ago, what he said was that the most convenient thing that could happen would be that we should carry on and that the Government should get the Committee stage today and have the Report stage tomorrow, and he added, as though in parenthesis—but I felt that the meat of the matter was in the parenthesis—that other matters would have to go by the board. I would say, in all friendliness to the Leader of the House, that even if, by some means—I will not say subterfuge —such as this, he can get rid of this debate on Thursday on the Christmas food bonuses from the Floor of the House, he would not get rid of this debate in the country. It will go on in the country, no matter what he or we or anybody else does about it.

It seems to me to be a pity that we should distort the proceedings on this Bill for a secondary and subjective purpose which has no connection with this Bill at all. It would be a pity if we continue to push through, under all the disadvantageous circumstances described by my hon. Friends, merely for the purpose of giving the Leader of the House a quite minor, and, in fact, valueless, triumph in getting rid of a debate which, tomorrow, his right hon. Friends, and especially one of his co-ordinators in another place, may find somewhat embarrassing to them.

I have had suspicions at some stages during our proceedings that, on the whole, the slow progress that was being made, while it may be grossly unwelcome to the Secretary of State, was not all that unwelcome to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who saw in this slow progress the possibility that they might really be able to get rid of this really embarrassing food debate on Thursday.

Let us put first things first, and let us put first at this moment the Bill we are now discussing. The best way to put it is, first, for the Government to take the advice which has been tendered to them, I believe in all sincerity, by my hon. Friends, who have worked hard on this Bill and made a great contribution out of their knowledge of the subject and the study they have given to it.

We could end our discussions now, and resume the Committee stage at more leisure, and have an adequate interval between the Committee and Report stages. If this means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) suggested, that we have to sit for one more day, at a time when we are asking the miners to work one more day a week and when we are calling for extra work and productivity from everybody else, I do not believe there is any hon. or hight hon. Gentleman who would object to it.

The Chairman

I think the arguments are becoming rather tedious. I have heard that said so often in the last hour.

Mr. Crookshank

May I make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), who was speaking as he saw the problem, that there was no desire or wish or anything of the kind on my part or anybody else's part not to have the food debate on Thursday? My trouble was not so much in that respect, but how, in the changed circumstances, I was to be able to carry out an obligation which I had entered into with the Opposition. I have no desire whatever—perhaps that impression was caused through inadvertence on my part—not to have that debate. In fact, the position is very much the other way round, and the Minister, who is very anxious to have it, has been pressing me so that, if the Opposition asked for it, they should be given the opportunity.

Mr. Wyatt

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the serious arguments which I put to him on the general efficiency of conducting a Bill in this way, and the loss there will be to the Bill if we continue with it all through the morning?

Mr. Peart

I hope the Leader of the House will be conciliatory on this matter. After all, we have had a very long debate on several important subjects. As I stressed on a previous occasion, we are discussing an important part of our defence preparations, and, therefore, we should give it very careful and detailed examination. All that my hon. Friends are asking is that we should have another opportunity on another day to continue the discussion on some of the remaining Amendments and Clauses which are on the Order Paper.

That, surely, is not too much to ask, and in the long hours of discussion we have already improved the Bill, and I am certain that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for War will approve such conduct. That is what we are here for. We are here to debate, to deliberate and to suggest constructive proposals. That has been done, and, therefore, I hope that, in view of the experience of all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, the Leader of the House will be conciliatory and will appreciate that this is an important Bill, and that it should have careful scrutiny and examination at a time when hon. Members can give that proper consideration to it which is so essential. I ask the right hon. Gentleman really to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Ede

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will listen to the quite reasonable speeches that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) because I know exactly from my own experience in the earlier months of this year the thoughts that are going through his mind and through the mind of the Patronage Secretary as to where exactly we are going to drift in the course of the next half hour or so, with the possibility of not getting this Bill at all at this Sitting unless it overlaps the next Sitting.

Of course, I do not know how many Amendments of those remaining on the Paper it is proposed to call, but there are a certain number of Amendments to Clause 3. There will be the Motion that Clause 3 stand of the Bill, and then there are a number of new Clauses which seem to me to be likely to be called having regard to their importance and the way in which they raise matters that are quite appropriately connected with the Bill. I would have thought that in view of the fact, as I said to some of my hon. Friends when we finished Clause 1—

I am not quite sure now whether with regard to Clause 1 it is the Government's Clause or ours because Amendments of such importance and width were accepted by the Government—that a great many of my hon. Friends felt a great deal more reconciled to the Bill, especially having regard to the promises made to us regarding further Amendments to be moved the Government would be satisfied. We really felt that Clause 1 was the kind of Clause with which I always feel a Government ought to be rather satisfied because they had listened to what had been said by their opponents and, as a result, we had got a Clause that really represented good House of Commons work, a Clause that admittedly was one of some difficulty and one which excited some depth of feeling on this side of the Committee.

8.30 a.m.

If it were now agreed that we should report Progress. I am not quite sure what is going to happen assuming that we have a Sitting of the House for Wednesday, or what the business is going to be. There have been put down the later stages of some Measures which did not get a Second Reading on Friday. I rather expected that yesterday we would have heard, at the end of Questions, a suggestion from the Leader of the House about how we are going to deal with such Measures as the Judicial Salaries Bill, the Metropolitan Police Borrowing Bill, and the British Museum Bill which, as a former trustee of the British Museum, I know is earnestly desired by the trustees and the Treasury. I do not know what it is proposed to do with the Wednesday sitting of the House.

I should have thought that it might have been possible to report Progress now and to have gone on with the further Committee stage of this Bill at the Sitting beginning at 2.30 this afternoon. I do not imagine that any of these other Bills are in any way urgent. It would not matter if they stood over until after Christmas. Certainly, these further stages cannot be taken at the Wednesday Sitting of the House. I would have thought that if we could now report Progress and take the further Committee stage of this Bill at the Wednesday Sitting as the first business we would be able to get through the business, and the debates arranged for Thursday could take place.

I am not sure when the Leader of the House proposes to take the Report stage of this Bill, but I understand that his idea was that it would be the first business on Thursday for the first half of the day and to have the food debate after seven o'clock on that day. If that was his idea I should have thought that some arrangement on these lines could be made.

Mr. Crookshank

There was some other Government business. I should like to consider the matter.

Mr. Ede

I am trying to be helpful, and to see if we can find some way of meeting what I think is the desire of all hon. Members, namely, that we should have some opportunity of seeing the Amendments it is proposed to put down for the Report stage. I should Shave thought some arrangement could be made by which if at the Wednesday Sitting the remaining part of the Committee stage of this Bill were taken it should be possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for War to get the draftsmen to prepare some draft Amendments which could be circulated to hon. Members during the Wednesday Sitting. Hon. Members would thus have seen them if they wanted to discuss them on Thursday. If it were desired to move Amendments suggestions could be made late on Wednesday with regard possibly to manuscript Amendments.

Mr. Crookshank

I am here to try to help forward business. I do not think that on the spur of the moment I would be prepared to accept this suggestion. Perhaps if this Motion were withdrawn we could make further progress. I should be glad, in the meantime, to have a talk with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ede). I suggest, therefore, that the Motion might be withdrawn, that we carry on and start consideration of the next Clause. I hope there will always be some give and take in these matters. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and I could discuss the matter outside.

The Chairman

Surely the Motion will be withdrawn now and the discussion suggested by the Leader of the House allowed to take place.

Mr. Adams

In the interest of the Committee I am quite prepared to keep the discussion going for a few minutes while the Leader of the House has discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Since the Leader of the House is apparently not going to take the opportunity, I will go on to say what I had intended to say. It is that this Bill was printed on 14th November at a time when the Government knew the House was intending to rise on 7th December, which means the Government intended to force the Bill through both Houses in a period of three weeks. We have had 18 hours' discussion so far on the Committee stage.

The Chairman

I must tell the hon. Member that the tedious repetitions to which I have listened have gone on for about one and one half hours. If he continues I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. I have heard all these arguments before.

Mr. Adams

I will leave that point, Sir Charles. Clause I has been the subject of a considerable number of Amendments.

The Chairman

The Motion before the House is to report Progress. We are not debating the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill again, please.

Mr. Adams

I was explaining that because Clause 1 was the subject of so many Amendments we shall need to con- sider the printed record of these deliberations in order to put down our Amendments on the Report stage. The same thing goes for Clause 2 in reverse. It was so empty that there was little we could do with it. I do not like the implied threat of the Leader of the House that if further time were taken it would have to be taken at the expense of our discussion of the Christmas food bonus on Thursday. If he is going to make a threat of that sort I will reply with three further threats.

They are that the discussion on the Committee stage can go on beyond 2.30 this afternoon, which means the Wednesday Sitting would be lost. Secondly, it would be in order for the Opposition to put down two Motions of Censure on the Government. First, a Motion of Censure because the Government have done away with the Christmas bonus, and, second, a Motion of Censure upon the Government for their disgraceful conduct in announcing that houses were to be provided on a 50–50 basis for those who wanted to buy and those who wanted to rent.

The Chairman

These points have nothing to do with reporting Progress.

Mr. Adams

I was trying to pour oil on troubled waters by suggesting that if the Leader of the House was making threats with regard to progress there were threats that could be made from this side. I suggest we reach a conclusion now and resume discussion on the Committee stage perhaps one day next week, or possibly after Christmas. There will be no difficulty in putting down an Amendment, by agreement between the Government and the Opposition, to amend "1951" in the Bill to "1952" and so pass this Bill in the New Year.

The Chairman

I warned the hon. Member that I should ask him to sit down if he repeated his arguments and I now ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to moves, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173 Noes, 106.

Division No. 17.]	AYES	[8.41 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Gough, C. F. H.	Peyton, J. W. W.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Gower, H. R.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Alport, C. J. M.	Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)	Pitman, I. J.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Powell, J. Enoch
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Hay, John	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Arbuthnot, John	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Redmayne, M.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Baldwin, A. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Banks, Col. C.	Hope, Lord John	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Barber, A. P. L.	Hopkinson, Henry	Roper, Sir Harold
Barlow, Sir John	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Russell, R, S.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Horobln, I. M.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Scott, R. Donald
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Hurd, A. R.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Birch, Nigel	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Bishop, F. P.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Smyth, Brig. J. G, (Norwood)
Black, C. W	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Soames, Capt. C
Bossom, A. C.	Jenkins, R. C. (Dulwich)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Speir, R. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Kaberry, D.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Bullard, D. G.	Lambert, Hon. G	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Butcher, H. W.	Lambton, Viscount	Stevens, G. P.
Carson, Hon. E.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Cary, Sir R.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Channon, H.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Storey, S.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Linstead, H. N.	Studholme, H. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C	Summers, G. S.
Cole, N. J.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Sutcliffe, H.
Colegate, W. A.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	McKibbin, A. J.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Crouch, R. F.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Tilney, John
Crowdor, John E. (Finchley)	MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)	Turner, H. F. L
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Turton, R. H.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Vane, W. M. F.
De la Bère, R.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Deedes, W. F.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Vosper, D. F.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Donner, P. W.	Maude, Angus	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Drayson, G. B.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Watkinson, H. A.
Drewe, C.	Mellor, Sir John	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Molson, A. H. E.	Wellwood, W
Duthie, W. S	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Williams, Charles (Torquay)
Finlay, G. B.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Fisher, Nigel	Nicholson, G.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Fletcher Cooks, C	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Wills, G
Fort, R.	Oakshott, H. D.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Ormsby Gore, Hon. W. D.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Godber, J. B	Partridge, E.	Major Conant and Mr. Heath.
Comme-Duncan, Col. A.	Perkins, W. R. D

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Callaghan, L. J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Adams, Richard	Chapman, W. D.	Grey, C. F.
Albu, A. H.	Chetwynd, G. R.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Clunie, J.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Awbery, S. S.	Collick, P. H.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Baird, J.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hamilton, W. W.
Bartley, P.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hayman, F. H.
Bence, C. R.	Delargy, H. J.	Herbison, Miss M.
Benn, Wedgwood	Dodds, N. N.	Holman, P.
Beswick, F.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Bing, C. H. C.	Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Blenkinsop, A.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Blyton, W. R.	Fernyhough, E.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Boardman, H.	Field, Capt. W. J.	Janner, B.
Bowden, H. W.	Fienburgh, W.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Bowles, F. G.	Finch, H. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

King, Dr. H. M.	Oswald, T.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Kinley, J.	Peart, T. F.	Swingler, S. T.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Sylvester, G. O.
Lewis, Arthur	Popplewell, E.	Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughtom	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Logan, D. G.	Proctor, W. T.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Rhodes, H.	Watkins, T. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A	West, D. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Manuel, A. C.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Messer, F.	Short, E. W.	Wigg, G. E. C.
Mikardo, Ian	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)
Monslow, W.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Moody, A. S.	Simmons, G. J. (Brierley Hill)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Murray, J. D.	Slater, J.	Wyatt, W. L.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Steele, T.
Orbach, M.	Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allan.

8.45 a.m.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 173.

Division No. 18.]	AYES	[8.48 a.m.
Acland, Sir Richard	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Orbach, M.
Adams, Richard	Glanville, James	Oswald, T.
Albu, A. H	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Peart, T. F.
Allen, Scholeheld (Crewe)	Grey, C. F.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Awbery, S. S.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Popplewell, E
Baird, J.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Price. Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Bartley, P.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W)	Proctor, W. T.
Bence, C. R.	Hamilton, W. W	Rhodes, H.
Benn, Wedgwood	Hayman, F. H.	Robens, Rt. Hon A
Beswick, F	Herbison, Miss M	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Holman, P.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Blackburn, F.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Short, E. W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Shurmer, P. L. E
Blyton, W. R.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Bowden, H. W.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Slater J.
Bowles, F. G.	Janner, B.	Steele, T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J
Callaghan, L. J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Swingler, S. T.
Chapman, W. D.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Sylvester, G. O.
Chetwynd, G. R.	King, Dr. H. M.	Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Clunie, J.	Kinley, J.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Collick, P. H.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lewis, Arthur	Watkins, T. E
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M	West, D. G.
Delargy, H. J.	Logan, D. G.	Wheatley, Rt Hon. John
Dodds, N. N.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Drlberg, T. E. N.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Wigg, G. E. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Manuel, A. C.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Messer, F.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Fernyhough, E.	Mikardo, Ian	Wyatt, W. L.
Field, Capt. W. J	Monslow, W.
Fienburgh, W.	Moody, A. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Finch, H. J.	Murray, J. D.	Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allan.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Bennett, William (Woodside)	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Alport, C. J. M.	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Cole, N. J.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Birch, Nigel	Colegate, W. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Bishop, F. P.	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Arbuthnot, John	Black, C. W.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bossom, A. C.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Crouch, R. F.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Crowder, John E. (Finchlay)
Baldwin, A. E.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Banks, Col. C.	Bullard, D. G.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Barber, A. P. L	Butcher, H. W	De la Bère, R.
Barlow, Sir John	Carson, Hon. E	Deedes, W. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cary, Sir R.	Digby, S. Wingfield
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Channon. H.	Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA
Donner, P. W.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Scott, R. Donald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Linstead, H. N.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Drayson, G. B	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Drewe, C.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Duthie, W. S.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Soames, Capt. C.
Finlay, G. B.	McKibbin, A. J.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Fisher, Nigel	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Speir, R. M.
Fletcher.Cooke, C	MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fort, R.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Garner-Evans, E. H	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Godber, J. B.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Stevens, G. P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Cower, H. R.	Maude, Angus	Storey, S.
Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C	Studholme, H. G.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Summers, G. S.
Hay, John	Mellor, Sir John	Sutcliffe, H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H	Molson, A. H. E.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Heath, Edward	Nabarro, G. D. N	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hicks-Beach, Maj W. W	Nicholson, G.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Tilney, John
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Oakshott, H. D	Turner, H. F. L
Hope, Lord John	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D	Turton, R. H.
Hopkinson, Henry	Orr, Capt. L. P. S	Vane, W. M. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P	Partridge, E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Horobin, I. M.	Perkins, W. R. D	Vosper, D. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Hurd, A. R.	Pitman, I. J.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)	Watkinson, H. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Redmayne, M.	Wellwood, W.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Williams, Charles (Torquay)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Kaberry, D.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Wills, G.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Roper, Sir Harold	Wilson. Geoffrey (Truro)
Lambton, Viscount	Russell, R. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Brig. Mackeson and Major Conant.