LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 21 July 1952 vol 504 cc49-235

4.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I beg to move, I hat in the case of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill the following provisions shall apply to the completion of the Proceedings in the Standing Committee and to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading:—

1. Committee
5	(a) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the thirty-first day of this month, and the general provisions set out in paragraph 3 of this Order shall apply so far as applicable.
10	(b) At a sitting at which any Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a 10 Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
15	(c) No dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Committee, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, shall be made in the Committee 15 except by the Government, and the Question on any such Motion, if made by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any debate.
(d) On the conclusion of the Committee Stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

2. Consideration and Third Reading
20	(a) In the following provisions the expression "allotted day" shall mean any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government order of the day.
25	(b) The Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed on the first allotted day, and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at half-past 25 Nine o'clock.
(c) The Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day, and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock.
30	(d) The general provisions set out in paragraph 3 of this Order shall apply to the 30 Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading so far as applicable.
35	(e) If on an allotted day Proceedings on the Bill are not entered upon by half-past Three o'clock, or are interrupted by any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), there shall be added to the time specified in sub-paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph a 35 time equivalent to the time which elapsed between half-past Three o'clock and the time at which Proceedings on the Bill were entered upon or, as the case may be, to the time for which the Proceedings on the Bill were interrupted by the Motion for the Adjournment.
40	(f) On an allotted day Proceedings on the Bill or under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the 40 House.
(g) Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill, and may be proceeded with though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House
45	(h) On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or under this Order, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be made except by the Government, and the Question on any such Motion, if made by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any debate.
50	(i) In this Order any reference to the Proceedings on Consideration or Third Reading 50 of the Bill shall include any Proceedings at that stage for, on or in consequence of re-committal; and when any Committee to which the Bill has been re-committed (whether as a whole or otherwise) has gone through the Bill or the provisions in respect of which the Bill was re-committed, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and report the Bill to the House without putting any question.

3. General
55	(a) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee or by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time so appointed, put 60 forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules), 65 and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by the Government, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
60
65
70	(b) Nothing in this Order or in any Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee shall—
(i) prevent any Proceedings on the Bill from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or
75	(ii) prevent any further Proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee from being proceeded with at any sitting, in accordance with the Standing Orders, if the Proceedings which under the said Resolution are to be completed at that sitting 75 have already been completed, or prevent any business from being proceeded with on an allotted day, in accordance with the Standing Orders, if the Proceedings which under this Order are to be completed on that day have already been completed.
(c) Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to this Order.

It was once pointed out in this House that there is an astonishing natural law that applies to Motions of this kind. When seen from one side of the House they appear both reasonable and necessary; but the view from the other side shows the reverse of these virtues. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in the speech to which I am referring, went on to say: It was interesting to find how a speech that had been made by one hon. Gentleman who sat on the Opposition side, was answered by himself when he sat on the Government side, in the same terms as were used by the member of the Government who replied to him when he was in opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 124.]

When the right hon. Member for South Shields made these remarks, he might have added that nowhere does the reader of HANSARD find more eloquent passages of regret than those in which Governments, including his own, have introduced this limitation on the time for debate. I believe that these expressions of regret are sincere. I certainly hope that, whatever else the House will disagree about in what I have to say, they will accept my expression of regret as sincere on this occasion. I share to the full the, dislike of such Motions, but I hope to show that anyone who considers the matter fairly and without prejudice cannot fail to see that a time-table for this Bill is wholly justified.

As for a precedent for such a Motion, there is not much need for me to re-plough well-ploughed earth. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) quoted 11 under Conservative and Liberal Governments when he spoke on 25th November, 1948. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House added two more from the Labour Government of 1929–31 in his speech of 23rd April last, and there are, in addition, the well-remembered examples of the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Transport Bill, and the Iron and Steel Bill in the 1945 Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

They were important Bills.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I ask the House to agree to this Motion on three grounds. First, it is necessary that the Bill shall become law during this Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is what I am going to explain. Second, that after a fair period of trial in Standing Committee there has been no sign that the Opposition intend to make reasonable use of the time devoted to the Bill; and third, that the additional time which will be allocated to the Bill, if the Motion is carried, will be quite adequate for the remaining stages of the Bill.

May I deal shortly with the first point I made, that it is necessary that the Bill shall become law in this Session? In the view of the Government, it is necessary that the Bill should be passed and come into operation by the end of this Session in the interests of the new towns, and in order to secure that no obstacle remains in the way of the orderly progress of the plans of the development corporations. As I understand the position of order, it is not right for me, or for anyone who speaks of this Motion, to go into the merits of the Bill. We must confine our arguments to the question of the need for the time-table which the Motion suggests: and therefore—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

On a point of order, and in order to get that matter quite clear, it is, surely, incumbent upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to establish the importance, and therefore the urgency of the Bill, in order to justify the Guillotine? I should like to have that information from you, Mr. Speaker, clearly at the outset, so that we know where we are going.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I want to get the point right, and I know the right hon. Gentleman is interested in getting it right from the point of view of the House. As I understand it, the principle of the Bill has been approved by the House, and therefore one cannot—[Interruption.]—I know the right hon. Gentleman meant this seriously and I was going to answer him quite seriously. The principle of the Bill has been approved by the House, and therefore, as I understand it, and subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to argue again the principle of the Bill. But it is right to argue the urgency and the necessity for putting the matters contained in the Bill into early operation, and that is what I propose to do.

Mr. Bevan

At the beginning of the debate it is just as well we should get our minds clear about it. It is, however, in justifying a Guillotine Motion of this size and of this importance, necessary to justify the constitution of the Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I think that raises a difficult point on which I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not running away from the point at all: this is quite a possible view of the facts. A Bill, while not a major Bill in the sense that it raises important constitutional issues, may well be a Bill the putting into effect of which is a matter of importance for the communities affected, and in that way the urgent proceeding with the Bill is a matter of importance.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

On this point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, it is not only a matter of the right hon. and learned Gentleman having to justify the Guillotine in relation to this Bill. He was using phraseology which rather indicated that it is his view that it would be assumed that the nature, character and merits of the Bill were not relevant to this Guillotine Motion. If that were accepted without challenge—and I am therefore glad that my right hon. Friend has challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman—we ourselves should be inhibiting ourselves in the course of the debate, and I submit that it is perfectly reasonable that the nature of the relative importance and the relative urgency of the Bill should themselves be related to the necessity for the Guillotine Motion.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps it would be better if I were to say a word or two about this. I do not like giving Rulings in advance of the debate, but it does seem to me that the Question that will be before the House when this Motion has been moved is that this time-table be made. The arguments for it can, I think, without any breach of relevancy, suggest that the matter is important and that the Bill has to be got through by a certain time; and, against it, that the Bill is of no importance, and that is all right.

What would definitely be out of order in this debate, as I think the whole House will agree, would be adding a detailed re-examination of a Bill which has already had a Second Reading by this House. It is not easy to rule in advance, but I think that, with those few words from me, the House will manage to keep itself in order.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I take it from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to give reasons for limiting his speech to certain restrictions, that does not necessarily bind you in conducting the rest of the debate?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly, I do not feel bound by that. I think the distinction is fairly clear, even if it is not always easy to express.

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

Is not a very important point involved here? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to run away from this; it is not like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to run away from anything. It is one thing to say, with respect, that we ought not to discuss the contents of the Bill, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has used a very pertinent phrase. He says that it is in the interests of the residents of the new towns to get this Bill passed this Session. I submit that what we want to know—and what we are entitled to know, because the Home Secretary's case is based upon this—is what are these interests of the residents, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Speaker

Surely that is not a matter for me. It is not a point of order.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am sure the whole House is very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance that you have given us, and I am very glad that the line which I have indicated does accord with what I understand your Ruling to be.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I do not want to put this as a point of order, but I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has used a very important phrase in trying to justify this time-table. That phrase was to the effect that it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the residents of the new towns, that this Bill should be passed this Session. We want to know what are those interests of the residents.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I do not want to be at all unkind to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), but one very good way of learning what are the reasons for which I say their interests are affected would be to let me tell him, and that I shall proceed to do.

In following your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would not be right for me to go at length into the three points which I emphasised on the Second Reading of this Bill as to the difficult and laborious steps that will have to be retraced if the policy of the nationalisation of public houses in the new towns were not quickly reversed, and, therefore, I simply refer to them from the angle of the difficulty that we should be causing if we proceeded with the steps which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire.

Merely to recount them, the first was the opposition which showed itself to the preliminary steps that were taken by my predecessor in considering whether any of the existing licensed premises should be excluded from State management. It aroused an opposition which was neither synthetic nor confined to the new towns most immediately affected.

The second point, which underlined the laboriousness of those steps that would have to be retraced, is that we should have to spend a large sum of public money on the acquisition of these premises. As I reminded the House, the late Government had included a sum of £1 million for a number of houses—barely half those involved—and a further large sum would have been required for the rest.

The third point, of which I merely remind the House, is that that course would have required the setting up, for 12 widely separated new towns, of a supervisory organisation which would have had to be destroyed again when the new procedure came into operation.

Those are what one might term the negative points, and, in my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, they are serious enough. On the other hand, there are the positive points, which arise from the moment of time at which we now are in regard to development. If there is to be a change, it is essential that it should be implemented without delay, because the longer it is put off the greater will be the period of uncertainty and impediment to the ordinary development of the new towns. These positive points also fall under three heads, and I hope to put them quite shortly to the House.

The first is that three houses which have already been built by the development corporations in Harlow, Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage are now proceeding towards their completion. It was not possible to apply for licences for them at this year's brewster sessions. If licences are not applied for until the next brewster sessions, they would not become effective until April at the earliest, and that is taking a very optimistic view of the time in which the confirmation proceedings would be completed. In that case, these houses would stand completed and unused, and would bring in no revenue.

This Bill, as hon. Gentlemen who have studied it will appreciate, enables me to give certificates under Clause 4 (8) in respect of such houses, and it would then be possible to get licences for them at transfer sessions without waiting until the next brewster sessions, and so the delay would be avoided. It is clearly to the financial interests of the development corporations that these houses should be made ready and brought into use, and it is clearly in the interests of the inhabitants of the new towns, who will be their customers. That is the first point.

We must also consider the houses for which sites have been selected and plans passed. In these cases also, progress must be delayed until the Bill becomes law. As I understand the position, there is no dispute between the two sides of the House as to the importance of developing the new towns as complete and balanced communities, with all necessary amenities and suitable licensed accommodation, without allowing excessive delay to intervene between the arrival of the new population and the provision of this accommodation. The great question between us, on which we hold such strong and diverse views, is who should provide the accommodation and who should control these houses. Until the Bill is passed and the uncertainty is removed the plans for providing that accommodation cannot go forward.

The third point is the question of future years and further developments. Of course, the development corporations want to push on with their plans to the next stage and to begin to settle their building programme for ensuing years. It is of the utmost importance to them that they should take into account the provision necessary for new licensed premises. The fact remains that they cannot proceed much further with this vitally important work without the assistance of the committees that will be set up under this Bill. For this reason, again, the early enactment of this Measure is essential in the interests of the new towns and of the proper progress of the plans of the development corporations.

I want to deal not only with that facet of the matter, but with the arguments which are implicit in the Motion on the Order Paper. When last February the Bill was given a Second Reading and the Government proposed that it should be committed to a Committee of the whole House, it seemed reasonable to suppose that time could be found for its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. Subsequent events and the exceptional demands of financial business have frankly upset that calculation, and by reason of the critical economic situation bequeathed to us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite we have had an exceptionally complex Budget and Finance Bill which occupied no fewer than 11 days in Committee on the Floor of the House. Once the House had decided to commit the present Bill to a Committee of the whole House, the Government were naturally—and I am sure everyone would sympathise with this—

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. In the course of his argument, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the difficult financial and economic situation bequeathed to us." Shall we, therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, be entitled to argue in the course of the debate whether we did bequeath it at all, and what was the nature of it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I am afraid I did not hear the words; I have only just taken over. In my submission, all we are allowed to discuss is the Motion before the House.

Mr. Bevan

But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made a statement which will be printed in the newspapers tomorrow. Therefore, in my respectful submission, we are entitled to counter that statement. He said, in giving the reasons why this Bill was delayed, that it was because of the difficult financial and economic conditions "bequeathed to us." If that stands, shall we be entitled to rebut it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think one would be able to argue reasons for or against the time-table.

Mr. Bevan

With great respect, this is to put us under a very grave handicap; it is really to tie our hands behind our back while we are punched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has specifically stated that one of the reasons why the Government did not find as much Parliamentary time as they expected was because they had to deal with these difficult financial and economic circumstances "bequeathed to us." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are not contesting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right to say it; in fact, it is part of his case. But can we therefore argue what was bequeathed, and whether it was difficult?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think we can argue for or against accepting the Motion before the House.

Mr. Bevan

I am always very respectful to the Chair, but really this is not good enough. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat me fairly. I have just this moment arrived, and it is the best I can suggest.

Mr. Bevan

The statement was made while you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and we on this side are anxious to know—we have already addressed a question to Mr. Speaker who was good enough to give us his Ruling; he has said that we can discuss the urgency of the Measure and therefore its status and importance—whether we are entitled to rebut the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

One is able to rebut a statement made in favour of the Guillotine Motion, and if the reason in favour of it is not agreed it is quite in order to say why it is not agreed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I was going on to the next point, and I had said, as the right hon. Gentleman rose to make his point of order, that the Government were naturally reluctant to invite the House to alter its decision that the Bill should be sent to a Committee of the whole House so long as there appeared to be some prospect of finding time for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. But it became clear towards the end of June that the two or three days required for this would not be available. We believed that there was still time to send the Bill upstairs, allowing reasonable time for it to be considered in Standing Committee and completed by the end of the month. Accordingly, in the business for 26th June—if my memory is right, it came on between two and four in the morning of 27th June—the Government moved to re-commit the Bill to a Standing Committee.

Other things being equal, the Government, like the Opposition—because the right hon. Gentleman has said that that was his view—would have preferred to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House—hence their original proposal. As I indicated—although I do not think I said it specifically—it is not the sort of Bill which it is essential as a matter of constitutional propriety to take on the Floor of the House; and, when the convenience of the House required that it should be sent upstairs, the Government saw no impropriety in introducing a Motion for that purpose, especially as they had delayed doing so until the necessity became clear.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him on that point, because I know he wants to get it quite clear?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

May I ask hon. Members opposite to use a certain discrimination in interrupting me? I have given way of necessity—though I always like to give way—but I suggest that they should try to limit their requests for me to give way to once in five minutes. I think that is all I should be asked to do.

Mr. Hale

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He has twice said that the Government were most reluctant to introduce the Motion amending the original Motion to refer the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and he has described the mental processes through which they went in arriving at the determination that it was necessary to introduce that Motion. Is it not a fact that they did it precipitately, that it was put on the Order Paper without notice and without discussion through the usual channels, and that therefore we were unable to put down Amendments to it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I would not know if the hon. Member is right in any or all of those assumptions. [Interruption.] One must have a certain latitude, and I have given way. I am not in a position to answer these detailed points, but I assure the House that what I have said in the speech I am making is entirely accurate.

I want to go on to another point which is obviously of importance, according to the Amendment and according to what has been indicated. I want the House, before considering what has taken place and the adequacy of the time allowed in the future, to have clearly before its mind the size and set-up of the Bill. This is an entirely different matter from its importance for those who are affected by it. This is a matter of its physical extent and construction.

This is a short Bill of eight Clauses with a short Schedule of repeals. Of these Clauses three, Numbers 5, 6 and 8, are formal or, at any rate, do not raise any important issues. That is supported by the fact that so far they are remarkable for the paucity of Amendments in regard to them which appear on the Order Paper. Of the other Clauses, Clause 1 simply repeals the provisions of the 1949 Act applying State management to the new towns, so the questions that arise on it are those, and only those, that were fully discussed on the Second Reading.

The matter which in my view is suitable for discussion on the Committee stage is therefore virtually confined to Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and the Scottish application Clause, Clause 7. For these a period of four weeks in committee was surely enough. The history of the Committee stage and the evidence that the Opposition did not intend to make a reasonable use of the time given to the Bill is very clear.

Let me look at the progress which has been made so far. The Committee have had four Sittings, each of two and a half hours. The report of these proceedings occupies about 200 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Yet the Committee have disposed of only the first two Amendments of the 13 put down to Clause 1; and the full Order Paper runs to 18 pages of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules. When we were in Opposition—

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

When we were in Opposition and the House discussed the time-table proposed for the Town and Country Planning Bill we were told that progress at the rate of one Clause to a Sitting was too slow. When I was leading the Opposition on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill I was asked to agree to 24 minutes a Clause or Schedule. Progress at the rate of a fraction of a Clause to four Sittings makes it abundantly clear that the Opposition did not, and do not, intend to make a reasonable use of the time allowed.

Mr. Bing

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman in fairness to the House say how much of the time of the Committee was taken up by his resisting an Amendment that we should sit at 3.30 p.m.? Would he not also say that the whole of the second Sitting was spent in discussing what my hon. Friends, at any rate, regarded as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gross discourtesy to hon. Members in not letting them know that afternoon that he intended to move a Guillotine Motion with regard to this Bill?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me to deal with the details I will do so, but he must give me a moment. It is always hard, when one is submitted to constant interruptions and requests, to be blamed later—as it has been my fate on the last two occasions—for the length of one's speech. I simply ask hon. Members to bear that in mind; I am not asking for sympathy. Whatever other faults I have, I am too good a House of Commons man to do that. But I think it is a fair point to make, because other people who may come into the Chamber later may think one has taken up too much time.

May I give an analysis of the foul Sittings? The first 1 hour and 20 minutes were occupied with a discussion as to when we should sit. The next I hour and 10 minutes of the first Sitting were occupied with an Amendment relating to the postponing of the operation of the Bill. Discussion of that Amendment went on for 1 hour and 30 minutes of the next Sitting, and eventually I had to ask for the Closure to get a Vote on the Amendment postponing the coming into operation of the Bill.

The second Amendment took 55 minutes to one hour of the second half of the second Sitting. That was an Amendment which was described by one of its supporters as being one which I was unlikely to accept because it would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. Discussion on an Amendment so described went on for nearly one hour of the second Sitting and for one hour on the third Sitting.

Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)

On a point of order. I ought to inform the House that I am Chairman of the Standing Committee and that I pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman upstairs that merely because one hon. Member referred to this Amendment as being one which would wreck the Bill he should not regard that as a reflection upon my selecting the Amendment. I did not select it in any belief that it was a wrecking Amendment. I have to be careful to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says because a great deal of it might refer to the fact that I did not accept the Closure earlier.

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say something about me if he can, because clearly this is a very difficult matter. I might also take advantage of the fact that I am on my feet to say to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you were in the same position in 1947 during the debates on the Transport Bill. You did not vote in the Division on the time-table and, following your precedent, I do not propose to vote either. But you did intervene, and I am doing as you did in 1947 and looking after the Chairman upstairs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that I intervened on a point of order.

Mr. Bowles

I think it was the view for many years, and I have had many precedents, that when one is referring to a time-table any reference to what has been going on in the Committee upstairs is out of order until the Committee have reported to this House.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

As I said in Committee, no reflection on the Ruling of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was either intended or made.

Mr. Bowles

Or suggested?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Or suggested. I was quoting the literal words, and I think I put it to the hon. Member when he was Chairman that I was dealing with the subjective view held in the mind of one of the supporters of the Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

May I call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that certain corrections were made to that one sentence subsequently? On several occasions when certain statements were made by him I was lucky enough to get him to give way to me and I was also lucky enough to catch the Chairman's eye to put my point of view. I consider it most unfair to have used that statement out of its context as it was used this afternoon.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of order. Is it not a very old ruling of the House that it is completely and entirely out of order to refer at all to proceedings in Committee before that Committee has reported its proceedings to the House, for the very good reason that those who are on the Committee know what they are talking about and the rest of us have no idea at all until we get the Report?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Reports of the Standing Committee are printed each day by order of the House, and the House is aware of what is in them.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. In such a case then, if reference is made to a statement made in Committee upstairs, it would be perfectly competent for an hon. Member to read all the proceedings of the Committee relevant to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in order that everybody in the House should be appraised of the weight to be attached to the argument that he is making? Should we be in order to do that too?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not see why that should not be done.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

At the invitation of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I was explaining what had taken place in the Committee, and I had said that the Amendment described in the language I quoted—that it would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill—occupied nearly an hour of our second Sitting. The first hour of the third Sitting was occupied by a discussion as to whether we should sit that night. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the fact that he had suggested that we should sit at 3.30 in the afternoon. He did not mention that before that several colleagues on his side of the Committee had protested vigorously against any moment of the time in the debate on Colonial affairs being intruded upon by this Committee.

After that matter was finished—as I say, after an hour—we then had an hour and 20 minutes upon the Amendment which, in the expression, if not the opinion, of an hon. Member, would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill, and we were able to divide on that Amendment after 2 hours and 20 minutes, just before the end of that Sitting. The whole of the fourth Sitting, was occupied entirely by a Motion for the Adjournment.

I have not the slightest reluctance in stating these facts, and when they are remembered against the background that I have already quoted—namely that it had taken four Sittings and had occupied 200 columns Of the OFFICIAL REPORT—it becomes manifestly clear that the Opposition had no intention of a reasonable or proper use of the time. One has only to compare their conduct on this Bill—as I say, a fraction of a Clause in four Sittings—with the rate of one Clause to a Sitting in the case of the Town and Country Planning Bill, when we on these benches were in Opposition, to show how demonstrable that part of my case is.

The right hon. Member for South Shields asked us to consider the matter against the time that had been taken on the Bill which he introduced in 1949 for nationalising the public houses in the new towns, and I have gone through very carefully, as I am sure he has, the OFFICIAL REPORT Of that Committee. I hope that he agrees with me as to the facts, and I am sure that he will put me right if I am wrong in any of them.

The whole of Part I of that Bill took 10 Sittings in Standing Committee, while the most comparable part of the Bill, namely Clauses 1, 2 and 3 as they then were—the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that Clause 2 disappeared at a later stage—took eight Sittings, the other two Sittings being occupied with a special problem which arose then on the acquisition of land. The whole Bill of 43 Clauses and four Schedules took 14 Sittings.

These are the facts as I have found them. Assume that it is fair to compare the whole of Part I of that Bill with this Bill, which repeals its essential part, and we have 10 Sittings occupied by it.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I should like to put this point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because if I deal with it later I may be told that I should have interrupted him now. He has omitted two Sittings that were spent on the First Schedule, which was an integral part of Part I of the Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am quite prepared to take that into account. Let me put it this way. There were 10 Sittings dealing with the actual Clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that there was time occupied with the Schedules. Some allowance must be made for the fact that that was the first propounding of a scheme of nationalisation, and this is merely a repeal. [Laughter.] Oh, yes. Hon. Members can argue it; it is a perfectly fair and reasonable point.

Ten Sittings for a Bill of eight Clauses and a short Schedule would be something about which nobody could complain. Under this procedure the time-table allows for business that attracts by its very passing the Standing Order which provides for a business sub-committee. At that business sub-committee proposals can be put forward and discussed as to the time that will be allowed. I cannot anticipate the business sub-committee, but I can express my view that about six Sittings, which would bring the number up to 10, could be well and properly used to deal with the Clauses of this Bill.

That is a matter which I should be prepared to consider, and it would be possible to get about six Sittings in without seriously interfering with the time of hon. Members in the next fortnight, starting the day after tomorrow. Of course I say "about six Sittings" in a general way because I do not want to anticipate the business sub-committee. That is the position as I see it. I invite comparison with any other Bills from the point of view of the way in which this procedure has been used.

The other part of the complaint is that this Motion suggests a day for Report and another half-day for Third Reading. If for the moment hon. Members opposite will put out of their minds the strong feelings which I know they have, and which I quite understand, and will for a moment look back dispassionately at their Parliamentary experience, they will find that a day for Report and another half-day for Third Reading compares very favourably and generously with Bills of this size and, indeed, with longer Bills.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who, during the Committee stage, have heard and seen certain expressions of opinion made with vehemence and force, will consider this matter afresh today, because we come back to the point that is implicit in the philosophy expressed by the right hon. Member for South Shields with which I opened my speech, namely, that any Government must, unless it abdicates its functions, make sure that the Measures which it believes to be necessary are passed, and that the discussion of them is not so unreasonably prolonged that it interferes with the proper progress of the business of the Session. This Government have no intention of shirking their duty, even if it involves the regrettable step of having to ask the House to impose a time-table. That is why I commend this Motion to the House.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman paid me the unusual compliment of making a sentence or two of mine his opening gambit and bringing in another one when, I suppose, he thought he had completed checkmate. I do not dissent in any way from the views I advanced on those two occasions. There is no need to use strong language about this Motion. The plainest words are probably the best. It is a constitutional outrage.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman went into some detail about the proceedings on the Bill which I introduced in 1948 and which was passed in 1949. He was very careful to select the passages with which he dealt. That Bill started in Committee upstairs on 27th January. There are some curious parallels in the history of these two Bills. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) moved that we should not meet on the next Sitting day, and so we did not, but we sat on the 27th January; 3rd February; 8th February; 10th February and 15th February before we got to "Clause 1 stand part." I make that nearly five Sittings.

I was then upbraided by the Opposition for daring to move the Closure. After I had allowed the debate on the first Amendment to proceed for a Sitting and a half the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said: — he inflicted his views upon the Committee and then, as if God had spoken and there was nothing further to be said on the subject, moved the Closure and gagged the Committee. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a Parliamentary colleague for a good many years, that that was not only bad tactics, but bad manners. I hope this Amendment will receive more courteous treatment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd February, 1949; c. 2442.] In this case the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Closure before we had been sitting for half an hour. If I did not know his military record I should believe that he was a member of the Society of Friends, because he proceeds by means of an "Inner Light." He has no consultations with anybody. Twice in the first two sittings he was refused the Closure by the Chairman. That shows the spirit in which he started on the Committee proceedings.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

In fairness, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to say that my unsuccessful application for the Closure at the end of the first 28 minutes was on an Amendment which he had put down suggesting that we should not sit on the next Sitting day or the whole of the next week—until 12 o'clock on the Tuesday after. It was not in relation to the actual Bill. With regard to the second occasion when I was refused, I think it is correct that the Chairman said that he would give the Closure a quarter of an hour after I asked him.

Mr. Ede

I wonder how long it is since a Minister of the Crown has been subjected, upstairs, to the humiliation of having his applications for the Closure refused on two successive occasions. It shows the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman approached the Bill.

This afternoon he told us of the matters which, in my view, are suitable for discussion in Committee. That is the difficulty with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he thinks that matters ought to be discussed, very well and good; but if the Opposition— who, after all, have the responsibility of initiating and maintaining discussion on a Committee—do not happen to agree with him, apparently something mischievous is being done.

I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill merely repeals the existing law. It substitutes for our proposals a set of proposals with regard to the licensing in new towns which is not the ordinary law of the land. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had no consultations with anybody.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

What about the brewers?

Mr. Ede

The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be seen with them—or perhaps they would not be seen with him; but the curious thing is that what he has put in his Bill is what the brewers asked me for in 1946. He has had no consultations with them but, curiously enough, the Bill, which had a Second Reading on 22nd February, had put down to it on 14th March those very Amendments—all done by the inner light. This House should not allow this kind of thing to be done without the closest investigation. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Committee tender no apologies to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or to the Government for the way in which the Committee stage of this Bill has so far been conducted Now, on the way the Committee was constituted. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) used to be a Member of Committee C. The hon. Member for Wimbledon is the President of the United Kingdom Band of Hope Union—the first time, I should imagine, that any distinguished officer of that body sat on the Conservative side of the House of Commons. When the Bill was committed to a Committee upstairs, his name was removed from the Committee and we had brought on to the Committee the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew)

I do not think this House can criticise the actions of the Committee of Selection on this Motion.

Mr. Ede

I was not criticising the Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I thought there was some criticism of what the Select Committee had done. I understood that the Committee of Selection, as they are quite entitled to do, had taken certain hon. Members off one Standing Corn-mince and put them on another.

Mr. Ede

No. They took one hon. Member off and put another hon. Member on.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) conspired to change places?

Mr. Ede

I suggest that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) should inquire at the Whips' Office as to what happened.

Mr. Cyril W. Black (Wimbledon)

I have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in this connection and, of course, I wish to say something about it. I do not know whether you feel it would be most convenient to do so by means of an intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or whether you think it would be better to do so in the subsequent debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it is quite improper to criticise the action of the Committee of Selection, who are responsible for putting hon. Members on to Standing Committees, and I deprecate any discussion about their actions. They cannot be dealt with on this occasion.

Mr. Black

I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in all the circumstances it is just that either now or in subsequent discussion of this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]—I should have an opportunity—

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

And the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) may or may not be called in the course of the debate, but the actions of the Committee of Selection cannot be criticised. That is the point I made.

Mr. Black

I am not concerned with the actions of the Committee of Selection, if I may say so. What I am concerned with is the fact that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as I am sure he will agree, has impugned my consistency of conduct about this Bill. I submit that he has so impugned my consistency of action. All I am doing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is asking for your guidance and your ruling: am I entitled to deal with the allegation which has been made and, if I am, in your opinion would it be more appropriate that I should do so now or that I should do so in the subsequent debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot anticipate who is to be called, but I stick to the point which I made earlier: hon. Members are put on to Standing Committees by the Committee of Selection. It is the responsibility of the Committee of Selection and we cannot discuss it on this occasion.

Mr. Ede

I want to make this clear: I am quite willing that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) should interrupt me to tender any explanation that he likes.

Mr. Black

If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not quite understand the excitement with which I am faced from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hamilton

Stop filibustering.

Mr. Black

It is being inferred by the right hon. Member for South Shields that for some reason, because of my supposed disagreement with this Bill, and by some means or other, my name was removed from Committee C for the purpose of the consideration of this Bill and the name of another hon. Member substituted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is just what I do not wish discussed. That is done by the Committee of Selection and it is not before the House now.

Mr. Black

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, possibly you will permit me to make my view about this matter clear in the subsequent debate.

Mr. Ede

The fact is that the hon. Member for Wimbledon is not a Member of the Committee and somebody else is. The best way in which we can consider the need for the Motion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has submitted to the House, is to examine the history—

Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)

Some of us are under the disadvantage that we were not upstairs in the Committee. We should like to know whether it is a fact that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who took the place of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) is Chairman of the Brewers' Association.

Mr. Ede

I do not think he is quite as high as that.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

That calls for an explanation.

Mr. Ede

He is a director of Ind, Coope and Allsopp, some of whose houses will be released from the liability to be purchased as a result of the Measure which we are now considering.

Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe)

How can the right hon. Gentleman substantiate his statement that one hon. Member was substituted for another? Might not the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) have replaced some other hon. Member, other than my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)?

Mr. Ede

Of course, when Surrey lost Bedser, Laker, Lock and May, they substituted four others; and it is difficult to say who was substituted for whom. But I am certainly entitled to draw my own conclusions, and I think most reasonable people will draw the same.

Some of my hon. Friends have told me that we are in this present position because of the political ineptitude of the Leader of the House. Having known the right hon. Gentleman for a great many years, I do not believe him to be capable of political ineptitude. We are in this position not by accident but by design. Let us accept for the purposes of the argument, and for nothing else, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that we could not have this Bill on the Floor of the House because the Government were clearing up the bequests. One of the troubles of this Session of this Parliament has been lack of business for the Committees upstairs. They could have sent this Bill upstairs, to occupy one of the Committees that have been unemployed, early enough to have given us full opportunities for discussion up there.

I do not accept the view that we could not have had the Bill on the Floor of the Chamber. After all, we were to have four great Measures this Session: the Transport Bill, which we have seen, but is withdrawn from our sight, and which we may take next Session and not this; the Steel Bill, the later gestatory stages of which we are to be given some indication of one day this week; the Monopolies Bill—well, we have not even got as far as that with that—it has not apparently even been conceived yet; and there was another Measure to deal with emergency legislation which was to he taken in two parts; we have had the first, but nothing more has been heard of the second. When one thinks of the time that was taken to spend Christmas this year in a Parliamentary sense it is quite clear that, if the Government had wanted this Measure to be here in circumstances that would have enabled it to have been discussed properly, there was ample time either on the Floor of the Chamber or upstairs.

Instead of that, this Bill—while there was all this trouble about next year's brewster sessions in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—was allowed to lie fallow for four months; and then it was decided to send it upstairs; and the Government took good care to put the Motion to defer it upstairs at the end of a day's business, when it was evident it would have to be taken early in the morning, although the only precedent for such a course had quite rightly placed the Order first on the Order Paper for the day, so that the alteration could be properly discussed. This is not ineptitude. This is political trickery.

The whole history of the Measure indicates that this is a Bill on which the Government do not desire to have adequate discussion. I suggest that there is no reason why this Bill should be forced through in the later stages of this Session. I see that one of the newspapers that generally gets good information of the Government's intentions says that the Report and Third Reading stages will be taken on the two days immediately after our return. We understand that there will be about three weeks after we return. That is not treating another place with much respect. After all, there are the experts. I am old enough to remember the father of the present Minister of Food, who said that there were two qualifications for being up there. One was to be the first of the litter, and the second was to have brewed vast quantities of beer. The House where the real experts are is to have, at the most, three weeks to consider this Measure.

We should be quite willing on this Committee to sit all through the night. We offered the right hon. and learned Gentleman that last Wednesday. When people began to object to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that we should meet at 3.30 we said. "Very well, we will start at 10." After all, we have got the people on that Committee who seem to take a delight in spending late hours of the night. But, of course, one of the difficulties about this Measure is the mesmeric effect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch has on the supporters of the Govehnment when he comes into the discussion. We might be discussing the Hypnotism Bill.

I once saw at the Oval, when Gloucestershire were playing Surrey, Surrey disposed of "The Doctor" fairly early, and a young man came down the pavilion steps and we had about an hour of Gilbert Jessop. My hon. and learned Friend has just the same effect on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and another hon. Member thought, when my hon. and learned Friend started, that it was their turn to bowl, and we wasted a good deal of time while we were recovering lost balls hit over the pavilion roof.

This Measure is one which gives to the brewing houses of the country the opportunity to secure a monopoly in each of these new towns. That was what they asked for. When they came to see me they had already decided who was to have which. That is what this Bill is to do, and because we question it we are to have as little time as possible in which to discuss it. This Bill was read a Second Time on 27th February; it was not referred upstairs until 27th June. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) used to meet me every Thursday and ask, "Are we going to hear about the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill today on the business statement?" We heard nothing about it until the end of June. If they were serious in wanting this Bill it is quite clear that the Government had ample time to have this discussion during the months that intervened either on the Floor of the Chamber or upstairs.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman consults nobody, but I understand that he has received an emergency telegram from the Methodist Conference who met last Friday. I trust that he is to consult them. They tell me that the emergency telegram says that that Conference, who, after all, represent the biggest Nonconformist body in this country, are greatly perturbed by the Bill and beg the Government to withdraw it. At the same time, while they desire the withdrawal of the Bill, they wish this matter to be thoroughly considered in the full light of day.

We have placed our Amendment on the Order Paper because this is unlike any other time-table Motion that has ever been moved in the history of this House. Three Sittings upstairs, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made up his mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] He made up his mind during the third Sitting—he told us at the fourth Sitting—that he would have to come to the House and ask for a time-table Motion.

He did not approach us to know whether it was possible to get a voluntary time-table for which there is a great deal to be said on the Committee stage of this Bill. He should have consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the way in which he got the Education Bill through Parliament in 1944. I know that last year on the Finance Bill efforts were made to get a voluntary time-table, and they were made this year as well.

I have no doubt that it would have been possible to have arrived at an arrangement by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have ensured that the Government would have got their Measure with full discussion; but it is obvious that it is the second part of that stipulation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want. This proposal today marks the absolute low water mark of Parliamentary prestige. This country, with the other free nations of the world, has sacrificed the flower of its youth of two successive generations and reduced itself to beggary in order that Government by free discussion shall be preserved.

The claim of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he made upstairs, and that he has repeated here this afternoon, namely, that he knows what are the matters which are suitable for discussion in Committee and that it is really an effrontery—he used the word upstairs—on the part of the Opposition to think that they know what ought to be discussed. That represents a failure to preserve free government and open discussion which deserves the condemnation of the House.

I therefore beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from "Bill" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: this House declines to make an Allocation of Time Order in respect of a Measure which received its Second Reading on 27th February and was thereupon committed to a Committee of the whole House under which committal no action was taken by Her Majesty's Government, and which was only referred to a Standing Committee after a lapse of four months during which time Standing Committees were available for its consideration and has now only been before the Standing Committee at four Sittings.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

In this short Parliament we have had many examples of sham opposition but we have never had an opposition which has been so obviously sham as that which has been put up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) this afternoon. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman led the sham attack with his great reputation as a sportsman, and we enjoyed his sporting metaphors; but that in no way hid the fact that the Opposition are here to carry out a manoeuvre to hinder the Government business.

With one possible exception, that exception being the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), they are not really concerned with the principles behind the Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself made clear reference to two hon. Members, the hon. and. learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who sit on this Committee. They have had a lot of practice in wasting the time of the House, and they have taken all of that practice upstairs so as to waste the time of the Committee.

I was most interested to note the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when he asked Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Nicholls

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I think that I am entitled to the normal courtesy of the House. I understand that the hon. Member now on his feet, who was not a member of the Standing Committee and took no part in it, is making references to observations which he alleges I made or to conduct committed by me in the course of the proceedings of the Committee of which I was a member. Therefore, I should be grateful if I could have your guidance on two points, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

The first is that when we debated the Motion to impose the Guillotine on the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill a Ruling was given by your predecessor. I say at once that I am not raising the substance of that Ruling, because I feel that it might be open to dissent and I do not want for a moment to limit the discussion. I merely want to know what the Ruling is now. Can we now say that that Ruling was wrong and that the whole of the proceedings of the Committee are open for discussion?

I should also like your guidance on a second point. Is there any precedent in the history of the House for an hon. Member rising to his feet, opening his remarks with a personal attack and refusing to give way when the person attacked rises to his feet?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that the last point is a point of order. It is more a point of courtesy. With regard to the question of quoting from the Committee proceedings upstairs, as the hon. Member knows those proceedings are published daily, under the Standing Order. In a debate of this kind I do not think that we could get very far if we were not able to give reasons for and against the Guillotine Motion.

Mr. Hale

I am labouring under a physical difficulty in that I have not got any reading glasses and, instead, am relying on a very clear memory. The Deputy- Speaker at that time was the late Mr. Hubert Beaumont, for whom we all had a profound respect. He ruled that we could not refer to what happened in the Standing Committee. I venture respectfully to agree with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that we can refer to what happened. I thought that my speeches there were extremely good and I hope that they will be quoted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes. I have ruled that we can refer to the Standing Committee. I know that the Ruling referred to was given by another occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Nicholls

That intervention by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is typical of the sort of time-wasting employed upstairs. The hon. Member for Oldham, West ought to have listened not only to my speech but to that of his right hon. Friend, because it was his right hon. Friend who referred to the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were on this Committee. It was his right hon. Friend who said that they were practised in keeping up the House all night. I was merely adding to what his right hon. Friend said. That was one part of the speech with which I entirely agreed.

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale asked for guidance on whether or not it was in order for hon. Members to quote the proceedings of the Committee upstairs. On that I would say that if we wanted complete justification for the powers for which my right hon. and learned Friend is asking all we should need to do would be to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee upstairs. If one does that one sees that from the very start it was the clear intention of the Opposition to hinder and to waste time. That was their only intention.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

Why not?

Mr. Nicholls

There are 200 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT during which the Committee have attempted to deal with only the first few words of Clause 1 of the Bill. That speaks for itself.

We saw the right hon. Gentleman so hard put to it to justify the opposition they are putting forward today that he really had to descend to what I thought was dirty in the extreme, in his veiled reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) changing places on the Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). The inference was perfectly clear. He gave the name of the firm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, but every hon. Member in this House knew before the Committee sat, and after the Committee sat, what interest my hon. Friend had. There has never been any question of wanting to hide that, and to suggest that with some ulterior motive a Member was being put on that Committee to give vent to a personal interest without disclosing it—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This sounds as though it is going to be a criticism of the Committee of Selection, and I have already ruled that we cannot have that.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. It is, in fact, not only a question of an inference against an hon. Member, but it is in accordance with the rules of the House and for the protection of the hon. Gentleman himself that his business interests should be disclosed when any matter of this sort is before the House of Commons. Therefore, in my submission, the hon. Gentleman's argument is completely beside the point, otherwise if a Member's position was not known he could be brought before the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Nicholls

The point I was making was that my hon. Friend's interests were well known before he was put on the Committee, exactly the same as the interests of the hon. Member for Ealing, North were known when he was put on the Committee. It is not without significance—

Mr. J. Hudson

May I point out—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. This is just the point I said could not be discussed. The action of the Committee of Selection of the House in putting certain hon. and right hon. Members on Standing Committees is not before us now, and I hope the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) will obey my Ruling. I do not wish it discussed.

Mr. Hudson

On a point of order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the disgraceful charge he has made against me, when he states that I am a brewer.

Mr. Nicholls

Far from making any disgraceful charge against the hon. Gentleman, I have already given it as my opinion that he was the only Member on that side who was genuinely interested in the principle behind the Bill.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

That is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Nicholls

Without making any reference to the Committee of Selection, I would merely like to observe that we had sitting on Standing Committee C an hon. Member who is not usually a Member of that Committee, and that was the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I can see nothing wrong with his selection for that Committee any more than of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. You have twice given a Ruling on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman is continuing to discuss the appointments to the Committee in defiance of that Ruling. With respect, he is completely misleading you about what was said in Standing Committee C, because the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) very fairly disclosed, not merely that he was a director of Ind Coope and Allsopp—who appear to own about every public house in one of the new towns—but also a member of the Brewers' Society of this House and a member of the finance committee of the Brewers' Society. I did not know there was a Brewers' Society of the House. I have certainly never sat as a member of such a society which has a finance committee, and we would all like to know where the finance comes from.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that arises from my Ruling. My Ruling is that the action of the Committee of Selection cannot be discussed, and if the hon. Member for Peterborough proceeds to do so any more I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. It looks, in my submission to you, like being a very ugly situation. Do we understand that there is a Brewers' Society of Members of the House?

Mr. Hamilton

Yes.

Mr. Bevan

And that that society has a finance committee of which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) is the chairman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is that not coming very very near indeed to wholesale corruption? In my submission, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) misled the House just now. I hope it will not be taken for granted, or assumed, that hon. Members' business interests are well known, and that therefore they need not disclose them, because if they do not disclose them they are liable to very grave penalties indeed. If there is a House of Commons association of brewers taking part in the formulation of legislation affecting the brewery industry, or influencing the nature of legislation, either by vote or discussion, then their names should be immediately known, because—

Mr. Nicholls

On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am hearing a point of order at the moment.

Mr. Bevan

I am already on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman ought to learn the rules of order. I should like to get your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, upon this matter, because there is a very great difficulty here. Hon. Members on all sides of the House may now labour under the suspicion that if they get up and support the Motion now before the House they may be suspected of being in the pay of the brewers, or being members of this association, whose obvious purpose it is to promote the interests of the brewers. Therefore, in order that that suspicion may be removed from those who are not members of the association the names of the members of the association ought now to be told to the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The position of a pecuniary interest is really quite simple. A Member may not vote on any question in which he has a pecuniary interest —[Interruption.] If I might be allowed to finish what I was going to say it might help the House, and we would not need to be so noisy about it. A Member may not vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. If he votes on such a question his vote may, on Motion, be disallowed, and then Erskine May goes on to explain that the interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy. It can also be seen at page 421 of Erskine May that the matter of pecuniary interest cannot be raised as a point of order; it must be done by a substantive Motion. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear nothing more about it. If hon. Members want to put down a Motion they are quite entitled to.

Mr. Bevan

I am not raising a point of order with regard to a particular person, although I am informed that the hon. Gentleman who was on the Standing Committee has a direct pecuniary interest and did, in fact, vote. It makes it all the more significant in this case, because one or two votes in this Committee determine the nature of the decision—two votes only I understand. If you say that it is not a matter for a ruling now, all I can ask is that you consider it and rule a little later on. We are informed—for the first time to my knowledge and to that of other hon. Members on this side of the House—that there exists in this House an association with a finance committee—

Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Bevan

No. We understand that there are members of an association called the Parliamentary Brewers' Association, who actually do vote—

Mr. Peter Remnant (Wokingham)

May I just point out—

Mr. Bevan

May I finish? I therefore say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if you say this is not a matter on which I can have a Ruling now but that there must be a substantive Motion, then all we can do is to put the Members of that association under notice that they may all be brought before the Committee of Privileges unless they disclose the interest they have tonight.

Mr. Marlowe

On a point of order. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is quite innocently labouring under a complete misapprehension. What my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) referred to was what is, I understand, called the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society. My impression is that the Brewers Society have a Parliamentary Committee, and I think that was what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Whether the brewers or the teetotallers have a Parliamentary Committee has nothing to do with us. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Nicholls

It is quite illuminating how right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are thoroughly enjoying grovelling in the dirt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They use every subterfuge to prevent a speedy decision on what is a proper move on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend. I remember the Prime Minister in the last Parliament saying what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) would do in his position if he had an equally small majority in the House. He said that if the right hon. Member for Woodford had a majority at the back of him as small as he had, he would carry on with the government of the country. That is precisely what the Government are doing now. The Opposition have made it perfectly clear in the Committee upstairs that they intend to delay Government business. With the exception of one Member of that Committee, they are not interested in the principle behind the Bill.

Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness)

May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member is making a reflection upon a great many Members of that Committee?

Mr. Nicholls

All that they are intending to do is to delay the proceedings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that we should accuse each other of insincerity.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Nicholls

It is the duty of the Government to ensure that its business is proceeded with—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and we have seen from the filibustering that has gone on that the Opposition are trying to break that down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale talked about a constitutional outrage. There is no doubt about it that what the Opposition have been doing so far is a constitutional disgrace.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I have said before that I am labouring under the physical difficulty that I cannot read at the moment. I have had to consult my hon. Friends. As it has been said that I was wrong in my recollection, may I quote the exact words used by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) in connection with the Brewers' Society? He said: … I am a member of the Parliamentary Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 16th July, 1952; c. 69.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Nicholls.

Mr. Nicholls

The main principle behind it is perfectly clear. The Opposition Party are in favour of nationalisation, and when they had the power they nationalised this particular section of the licensing trade. We now have the power. We are against nationalisation. We believe that to allow a nationalised licensed trade in that part of the country would be against the best interests. We are using the power to put right the mistake made by the previous Government. We are using the procedure of the House of Commons and its Committee Rooms upstairs to do that. The Opposition are deliberately and wilfully trying to hamper the real intentions of the Government.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has spoken of the issue which we are debating as being not a Bill but a piece of trickery. In using that term, he was following the views of the Prime Minister himself when at one time he spoke about the party which he now leads and said that the Conservatives were not a party but a conspiracy. A long time ago it was said that the leopard never changes his spots. I wish tonight to criticise the steps which the Government are now taking in carrying out the arrangements they have made from the beginning with the greatest of their friends, the brewing fraternity.

The brewers are on top in this situation. This Bill, as it is described, is a brewers' Bill. The design was carefully worked out, as we have explained during the Second Reading debate, at the time of the General Election, when everything was done to make clear to the friends of the brewers what the Tory Party intended to do. At the same time, there was a most careful reticence on the part of the leaders of the Conservative Party about the responsibility they were taking for the proposals which the brewers had made At one stage of our discussion in Committee, I pointed out to the Joint Under-Secretary of the Home Office his statement during the Second Reading debate that the Tory Party had made its policy clear about this Bill before the General Election, and in order to prove that his speech was not, what I thought then and which I am sure now, a bit of sharp practice, he referred not to what the party leaders had said but to what a Mr. Percey, who was a representative of the liquor trade, had said that the Tory Party would do if it were returned to power. It was not a question of our being told or of the country being told that the Prime Minister had said what he would do with this problem of State management in certain areas. It was not a question that the Home Secretary had said anything. He said not a word. Lord Woolton, busy making promises about red meat and everything else, also made no reference to this matter.

This was an announcement of the friends and officials of the trade so designed that the voting strength of the trade would be at its maximum in all constituencies on the side of the Tory Party, while the mass of the people were never informed on Tory responsibility what was going to be done. I repeat my charge; it was a conspiracy with the brewing trade against the electorate of the country, and what started as a conspiracy has continued as such on the facts which have come to light during the debate.

I paid my compliments quite honestly to the Home Secretary in earlier debates, and, though I have been bitterly indignant with him for what I consider to be his quite unjustifiable behaviour with reference to what has gone on in the Committee, I am still hoping that he is not quite as bad as the rest of his colleagues are. He has talked today about the interests and rights of the residents in the new towns. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear." What evidence is there that hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown the least interest in proposals for ascertaining the views of the residents in the new towns?

I put down an Amendment, which has been ruled out of order, because I wanted to find out by a direct vote, taken under a Measure which gives people in local government areas an opportunity to say what they want to have done with this, that or the other, what the residents in the new towns think about this matter and what their interests are. There is no evidence that hon. Members opposite have tried to find out the views of the residents by means of a poll.

Mr. Græme Finlay (Epping)

The largest designated new town in England is situated in my constituency. Before the General Election a plebiscite was held, and the result was that 2,341 people were against nationalisation and State management and 110 were for it. Over 50 per cent. of the new town area voted in the poll.

Hon. Members

Who ran the poll?

Mr. Hudson

Who were the people who voted in the poll? What were the arrangements for the plebiscite? What evidence have we had that any real attempt has been made to find out the views of the people? I repeat that the only interest of the Tory Party was not that of the residents but what the brewers, who had profits to make out of the residents, wanted done.

Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham)

The hon. Member will remember that in Committee I made a statement about the new town of Crawley. I informed the Committee that the Crawley residents themselves—nobody with an axe to grind—held a meeting of their own which was filled to capacity and they eventually sent a resolution, which was passed nem. com. to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, who was then Home Secretary, to say that they wanted to have nothing to do with State public houses in the new towns.

Mr. Hudson

I know all about what the hon. Gentleman said about Crawley. I know that that has been said about Stevenage. The people who voted were the people who did not want any new towns at all and used every effort—

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay) rose—

Mr. Hudson

I cannot claim five minutes' immunity, as an hon. Gentleman did—

Mr. Braine

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. It is out of order for an hon. Member to stand if the hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way.

Mr. Hudson

I was indicating that I have got a challenge and am dealing with it. The people who voted and purported to give the views of the residents did not want any new towns and had little thought about the rights of those who would come to reside in the new town.

It has been said that the Tory Party, which never submitted the issue at the time of the General Election, was no more at fault in that matter than the Labour Government had been, because the Labour Government never submitted the issue of its Measure to the electorate. But the two matters are not on all fours. The Labour Government were responsible for bringing the new towns legislation into effect. It had hardly been considered by anyone that there would be a private conspiracy among the brewers and that they would meet together and do what my right hon. Friend has described, divide up the new towns among them.

I heard of that conspiracy long before the Labour Government's Bill was brought forward. The brewers had hardly learnt that there were to be new towns before this firm was deciding that it would have the "pubs" in that town and another firm was deciding that it would have the "pubs" in another town. The issue had certainly not been put to the electorate, but as soon as they learnt of the proposals the vultures swooped on to the prey of the new towns. The Labour Government were being confronted with an accomplished fact, with a conspiracy and an illegality, and the Labour Government were right to look for some proposal to deal with the issue.

What was the proposal to which they turned? Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the issue which they are now opposing has never been considered by the electorate. But what the Labour Government did was to apply to the new towns what has been called "the Carlisle experiment." The Carlisle experiment was brought into existence mainly by the party opposite, in wartime, it is true, and by Mr. Lloyd George and his supporters, too, but the Tory Party had full responsibility for it. I have a stronger charge to make against the Tory Party about the Carlisle experiment. They did not abolish it when they had an opportunity to do so.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us now how much they are opposed to the State public house as a principle. Tory Government after Tory Government after the First World War received annual reports from Carlisle, private reports from people who were examining the experiment's consequences and heard from the citizens of Carlisle what was happening there, but no Tory, either at election time or in this House, ever came forward with a precise proposal for the abolition of the Carlisle experiment. They were completely dumb about the matter.

I myself might have been accused of neglecting that question, because I do not know that I altogether agree with the Carlisle experiment. As was said in Committee the other day, I say, "A plague on both your houses." Yes, a plague on all those who can persuade themselves that they can do good by selling intoxicants to anyone. There is one lot of people on whom I would call down a plague of a sort which I would never call down on hon. Gentlemen opposite or on my hon. Friends, and that is the brewers, who have a long record of misdoings, with mighty profits obtained while undermining the health and the strength of our people through many generations. For the brewers no one can find any excuse.

There might have been a case for arguing that we should end the Carlisle experiment. I was so concerned about it that a number of my hon. Friends who make up what is called the Workers' Temperance League sent me on a deputation to Carlisle to see for myself what was going on. I was accompanied by a former chairman of the Trades Union Congress and by an hon. Member of this House, who occupied the position of Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Robert Young. We stayed a week and examined all the evidence and visited public houses. [Laughter.] Yes, I have never visited so many. Hon. Members may be surprised and would like to believe that I know nothing about this issue. I know a great deal about it. I almost made myself sick drinking "pop." I had to drink something in these places, and I took "pop."

I got the facts and I found that temperance reformers, who were just as keen about the matter as I was, agreed that there should be no reversion to the brewers. They pointed out weaknesses to me and insisted on safeguards and improvements, but not for one moment would they consider allowing the brewers to get control again in Carlisle. That also is the attitude of the country. One would have thought that the Tory Party knew it, and I believe they did know it, because they had the advice of the Royal Commission to guide them. The Royal Commission examined what had taken place in Carlisle, and said that it was a valuable undertaking and ought to be tried in a larger area because it could still be looked on as being in the experimental stage.

Any Government keen to deal with the problems of the liquor trade and the licensing system which are constantly confronting this country would be perfectly right to try the experiment in a further area in view of that recommendation, and that is what the Labour Government did. They had also before them the problem of the vultures sweeping on the prey in the new towns, and the then Government were perfectly justified in their attitude.

We considered the original Bill in this House and in Committee. During those proceedings we had long tussles with the Opposition, and if my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields had lost his temper as often as the Home Secretary lost his during this present Bill, and a Motion for the closure had been submitted in 28 minutes, there would have been greater resentment than was expressed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said during the fourth Sitting: The question of a time-table depended on the view that I formed of the method by which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were dealing with this Bill, as exhibited this morning. That was the third Sitting— I made two appeals to them to shorten the discussion. Just two appeals. We have been present in discussions in this House and in Committee when Ministers have made scores of appeals to shorten discussions, but if there is any belief in free speech and in the right of an Opposition to put forward vastly different views from those of the Government, a longer period is necessary than that given by the Government so far. A Government do not begin to snarl at the end of two Sittings or in a Third Sitting and only after two appeals by the Minister responsible to shorten a discussion.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say: I made two appeals to them to shorten the discussion, as could easily have been done, and they rejected my appeals with contumely and said I had no right to make them. That was the finishing point that decided a Guillotine ought to be used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 17th July, 1952; c. 191.] There sits Hitler on the Government Front Bench. He cries, "I made two appeals."

Mr. H. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many lines of the Bill had been dealt with before those two appeals were made? Was it not only seven lines after three two-hour Sittings?

Mr. Hudson

I will leave that as an exercise to the hon. Gentleman, as befitting his ability.

I assert—and I am not going to take long discussing this matter any further—that the people in the country are well aware of what confronts them in this matter. It is not only the Methodist Conference, to which my right hon. Friend has referred. There is a letter, too, from leading Methodists and it was sent out before discussion on this Bill started. My right hon. Friend has it and I have a copy in my hand. The letter says: The Conference, while recognising the conscientious objection felt by some temperance workers to any scheme of public management of licensed houses … To this extent I have the support of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), and I know his conscientious scruples about these matters. I am not engaged in making any difficulty for him, because I remember with deep gratitude the speech that he made the other day when a kindred question to this was being discussed. There are also many hon. Members on the other side who have similar conscientious scruples.

The letter to which I have referred goes on: … endorses the judgment that, in so far as it will help to prevent the exploitation of the drinking habit by the licensed trade, the proposal in the Licensing Bill to extend the principle of public ownership on the basis of the Carlisle scheme to the new towns is worthy of the support of the Methodist people. That was the issue which the Methodists understood in the General Election, and there was no right on the part of the Tories to say that. They have no excuse whatever. There was no strong appeal in our election manifesto about the decision that was taken. They now complain about our not accepting this complete voile face in the proposals which are now before us.

There is only one way to explain the situation that we now confront. It is the way that I started with, when I commenced my speech. The Tory Party has always been inclined to conspire with the brewing trade. The House does not need my evidence on this point. Who was it who said that the Tory Party was a party of great vested interests, supporting corruption at home and aggression abroad to cover it up. They stood, the Prime Minister once said, for sentiment by the bucketful, and patriotism by the imperial pint. The open hand at the public Exchequer"— Yes, even when we stand on a trap-door leading into financial perdition. The Tories might have changed the tradition, but the brewers would never do it, because perdition has been so profitable a thing for them through all their lives. To continue the quotation, theirs is the open hand at the public Exchequer and the open door at the publichouse. The Labour Government brought in a sensible proposal backed by a Royal Commission in order to defeat the conspiracy of the brewers, who, like the vultures, have swept down on to the new towns. The Tories have come along with their old policy, always hand in hand with the liquor trade, leaving the liquor trade to collect the 1,500 votes they control in every constituency. That is from evidence which was given to the Royal Commission. They left the liquor trade to collect those votes while they were silent about the proposals which they have now put before the House.

The Tories have no right to bring in this Guillotine Motion. They are interfering not only with the right of public discussion but with the fundamentals of democracy. It was an appropriate day—this, of all days—to bring in the Guillotine Motion, the day when the victor of Dundee marched up the Floor of this House. It was Dundee that once was represented by Mr. Scrymgeour, the Prohibitionist, when he flung out the present Prime Minister with a majority of 12,000 votes. It is appropriate that the voice of Dundee should be heard again on this day. I warn the Tories that their day of reckoning is not far removed.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe)

The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I desire to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I had a personal note from a Member of this House giving me notice that he intended in the course of the debate to refer to observations which I made on the Committee. I have sat here for hours, but the hon. Gentleman has not risen to catch your eye. Could I be allowed to go away for a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker

As far as I am concerned, although I should regret the departure of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I have no objection at all. Of course, I know nothing of this correspondence. I do not know who was the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)

It was I who wrote to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I have been biding my time before I attempted to catch your eye, in order that I might profit from the discussion which went on.

Mr. Hamilton

I too, had a note from the same hon. Gentleman. May I go, too?

Mr. Speaker

The House is going to be empty soon if this goes on. I have no objection, but hon. Members must settle these matters between themselves.

Mr. Fort

I hope I shall not be so successful in emptying the House as one of my hon. Friends has been for different reasons. Undoubtedly, we have listened to one of those sincere speeches which move us all. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). He has addressed a splendid peroration to us, referring to a long-ago defeat of the present Prime Minister at Dundee. But his argument is illogical. We have sitting here the right hon. Lady who successfully beat the Prohibitionist to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

The hon. Member showed sensitivity about the action of his own party when they introduced State licensing of the "pubs" in the new towns. He reminded us that it had no mandate for this, and showed some apprehension about the unpopularity of the move among people living in the new towns today. He found it necessary to answer at some length the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), who reminded us of what had happened at Crawley. Unlike so many hon. Members who spoke in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Ealing, North did so with a sincerity which moves even those who disagree with him.

Let us go back and consider the reason for this Guillotine Motion. Those who are sincere, like the hon. Member for Ealing, North, had a very clear reason for trying to delay the proceedings but most hon. Gentlemen on the other side seem to have been activated by quite other reasons. They seemed to hope that the Government would forget what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said in an earlier debate on a Guillotine Motion.

Speaking in April this year, the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that the Opposition have no right to use their constitutional position to prevent the right of the Government to carry through their business. That is practically what every hon. Member on the Opposition side in Standing Committee C has been trying to do for the last four sitting days. There is no doubt about it. We have only to turn to the record. For example, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) quoted poetry to the extent of nearly half a column. He was just trying to occupy the time of the Committee.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He is talking eloquently about the conduct of our business will he say why Scottish business had to be postponed? Why was Scotland treated in such a scurvy way in this matter?

Mr. Fort

I am very sympathetic with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), because I also represent a part of the country which has strong local feelings. His comment would be a great deal more powerful and persuasive, however, if his Scotch colleagues on Standing Committee C had allowed us to get on with business the other evening so that we could have reached Clause 7 of the Bill, which so deeply concerns Scotch arrangements I understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scottish!"] I am sorry—Scottish—I stand corrected and apologise to all Scots in this House.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the hon. Gentleman does not regard that as an answer? Surely he realises that Scottish business was fixed for this Monday well in advance? Scotland was given no notice that there was a change, and people came from Scotland for the purpose of taking part in a debate on Scottish affairs today and were put to great expense in order to do that.

Mr. Fort

The hon. and learned Member should really complain to his own party, for it was they who caused the delay in Standing Committee C. In any case, he has three more Supply Days this week in which to convince his colleagues on the Front Bench that they ought to give time for the important affairs of Scotland.

The truth is that the Opposition deliberately set out to make it impossible for the Government to carry out their duty, a duty which is recognised on both sides of this House. Except in the case of one or two hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North, the reason the Opposition took the line they did was clearly stated by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on Thursday last at our morning Sitting, when he said: This is the first of the destructive proposals which the Tory Party are bringing forward. If it were a constructive Measure I could understand the desire of the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends to push it forward. Yet it is simply a means of destroying the legislation of previous Governments."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 17th July, 1952; c. 112.] The Opposition were afraid that the Government would be successful in carrying through the first of the de-nationalisation Measures upstairs. It is the "sacred cow" of de-nationalisation which has so disturbed and shaken the Opposition. The prolonged discussions have had little to do with the sincere reasons of temperance reform or prohibition. The Opposition have been determined to stop, if they possibly could, the policy being carried through which we put before this country at the General Election, and on which we won the Election—the policy of de-nationalisation. That is why the Opposition have made the fuss they have done in Standing Committee C. Confirmation of that came from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who, in an interjection this afternoon, asked, "Why not?" when one of my hon. Friends was complaining about the tactics adopted upstairs by the Opposition.

That is the reason we have had to bring in this Guillotine Motion which I hope will be carried through as successfully as the previous one. I also hope that the Opposition will find, as they did previously, that this opposition to a necessary Bill will do their party no good in the country.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain why the Government took so long between February and July if it were so urgent for the Bill to come before a Committee?

Mr. Fort

I hesitate to take further time on this point which has been answered so often—[An HON. MEMBER: "We could have sat all night."] That is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, but I do not know how long the ardour of that side will last before drying up. The answer is first, that the financial Measures had to be carried through, and secondly, the time which could have been given to this Bill was taken up by the Opposition using similar tactics in delaying the National Health Service Bill dealing with charges.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I apologise for interrupting the debate but by no means ending it, and I promise to be relatively short. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us as one of his reasons for introducing this Motion that the Government inherited a crisis. It was described as an economic crisis which would shake the country and which was affecting not only ourselves but the whole world.

Parliament was adjourned for quite a time in order that the Government might deal with that crisis. Hon. Members reassembled after the new year to find out what were the tremendous steps which were to be taken to solve the crisis. The first Bill with which they were presented was this Bill to hand the public houses in the new towns back to the brewers. Nothing could have been more ridiculous from the point of view of the urgency of the crisis. As far as we know, there has been no demand for this Bill. Indeed, that was stated on Second Reading.

I regret that this Motion has been introduced today, for the time had been set aside for a debate on Scottish transport. There was no secret about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent the Conservative Party in Scotland met last week and actually proclaimed to the public through the Press that they were considering a debate on Scottish transport. Indeed, a right hon. Friend of the Home Secretary discussed the method of conducting that debate with me some time ago.

The importance of holding that debate today lay in the fact that there is a second debate taking place on transport tomorrow and dealing with the Report of the British Transport Commission. Obviously if we are to deal tomorrow with the entire question of British transport, it would be rather more difficult immediately after to have a more detailed examination of a part of it, such as the Scottish transport system. The priority which Scottish transport had received in the order of debate has been dislocated by the Government rushing in today to move this Guillotine Motion.

The complaint that we have against the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he gave us no intimation at any of the Committee meetings that there was any probability of this Motion being moved this week. Worst of all, there was no consultation, usual with a courteous Minister such as himself, with the ex-Ministers on the same Committee. Not one word passed his lips in discussing the matter either with my right hon. Friend or myself. Otherwise he would have discovered quite easily that there were better ways of doing what he wanted to do than by this dictatorial method of plunging the House into these decisions without any warning or discussion.

To put it mildly, that must be described as discourteous, and it is completely foreign to the normal behaviour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have put it down to the fact that he is governed by the pressure behind him to get the Bill through at all costs, whatever else must be swept aside in the process. As I said in the Committee, I was shocked to find that Scotland was to be kicked aside in order to make room for the brewers' Bill, which is the only description which can be applied to it. It was an insult to have our day taken away from us, but to have it taken away for this purpose was adding insult to injury.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Woodburn

The right hon. Gentleman was not here when I explained that, by taking today for the Bill, he has had to alter the priority that was arranged for the Supply Days. As far as we are concerned, he has dislocated the procedure laid down for the allocation and utilisation of our Supply Days. From the point of view of Scotland, it has taken away a priority that we valued very much.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Secretary of State for Scotland was consulted before this alteration in business was arranged. If not, why was not the Secretary of State consulted when business in which he is vitally interested is being shuffled about to suit the convenience of the brewers? The Secretary of State must have some views on this. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask him? Were the Cabinet consulted? If not, I should like to know the reasons. Did he consult his hon. Friends behind him?

I ask also why so few of the Scottish Conservatives are interested in the question of this day being lost and are showing, by their absence, their complete disinterestedness in the transport debate that they publicised so much last week and about which, evidently, they do not care whether it disappears in the interests of the brewers.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite justified in making that observation? If my eyesight serves me, there are as many Scottish Conservative and Liberal Members present as there are Scottish Opposition Members.

Mr. Woodburn

There have been very few Scottish Conservative Members here today. My hon. Friends, who have gone out for tea, have been here all day. The hon. Member knows that, and the point is not a valid one. The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party have not been taking an interest in this.

Sir W. Darling

Apart from the reason the right hon. Member mentioned.

Mr. Woodburn

As the hon. Member made that intervention, let me call his attention to another significant fact. There is not one Scottish Conservative Member on the Committee that is dealing with the Bill. There are two new towns in Scotland, but not even the Member who represents one of them happens to be on the Committee.

Sir W. Darling

I am obliged to the right hon. Member for drawing my attention to this important point, but surely he does not suggest that I am responsible for the selection of the Committee?

Mr. Kenneth Thompson (Liverpool, Walton)

On a point of order. Has not the House already had a number of Rulings from the Chair about the propriety or otherwise of considering the constitution of the Committee, and is the right hon. Member in order in reflecting on the process by which the Committee has been formed?

Mr. Woodburn

I have made no reflections on the Committee. I am commenting on the fact that on the Committee upstairs there is not one Member of the Conservative Party from Scotland. That is very important from the point of view of a proposition which I shall make shortly to the Government regarding the Motion. It is significant that on the Committee there is not one Conservative Member from Scotland, although there is a Conservative Member who represents an area in which there is a new town in Scotland. I am quite certain that if the Scottish Conservative Members had called the attention of the Selection Committee to the importance of their being present on the Committee, the Selection Committee would have taken that into consideration.

Mr. Thompson

Further to the point of order, to which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is still addressing himself, would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to give a Ruling for his enlightenment as to how far he can go in criticising the Selection Committee for not selecting Members from this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The selection of the Committee does depend, of course, on the action of the Selection Committee, who cannot be criticised here. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to found an argument on that.

Mr. Woodburn

I am not founding an argument. I am pointing out that there are no Scottish Members from the Government side on the Committee. Indeed, there are only three from our side. The importance of that is reflected in the fact that the time-table which the Motion proposes to establish would cut out what would normally be the time to discuss business on the Report stage. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides who represent Scottish constituencies will find themselves up against a time-table that does not enable them to deal adequately with the important parts of the Bill relating to Scotland.

Mr. Fort

On a point of order. Is not the time-table to be set by a Business Sub-Committee, and is the right hon. Gentleman in order in trying to dictate the terms of the time-table which the Business Sub-Committee are to decide upon?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to the Report stage, to which it is proposed that one day should be given in the time-table. The right hon. Gentleman's argument, as I followed it, was that that was insufficient to allow Scottish business to be transacted.

Mr. Woodburn

You are interpreting quite correctly, Mr. Speaker, what I am meaning to say. Practically all the Scottish Members, with the exception of three on this side of the House and one Liberal Member on the Government side, are not Members of the Committee. They are deprived, therefore, of the possibility of discussing the Scottish business. Quite clearly, they would not have the opportunities to do so on a one-day Report stage for a Bill of this kind. The Scottish Members, therefore, to a large extent will be disfranchised when it comes to dealing with the Bill in the normal way or contributing to its improvement.

Since it will be quite impossible for the Scottish Clauses to be dealt with in the Committee upstairs—so many Clauses come before Clause 7—if the whole of the business is to be crushed into a few days, Scottish business upstairs will suffer.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

This is not a party point—it is a question of fact. It would be the job of the Business Sub-Committee to arrange the compartments so that a compartment would be left to allow a day for Scottish business. That is what it ought to do and is what, I think, it should do.

Mr. Woodburn

I was trying to be helpful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I can see from the number of Amendments that are likely to be discussed, and from the fact that there are so many Amendments, even from his hon. Friends, on the Scottish Clause, that what he is doing may interfere very seriously with his desire to give more time to his hon. Friends who are dealing with the English side of the Bill.

I suggest that instead of dealing with the Scottish Clauses in the Committee upstairs, the Government should accept a Motion, which I have put on the Order Paper, to refer the Scottish Clauses to the Scottish Grand Committee. That would relieve the Committee upstairs of a great deal of time and would allow all the Scottish Members an opportunity of taking part in this important business.

Great disquiet will be caused by the fact that hon. Members on the other side, and some on this side also, who played such an important part in the original Bill, will not have any proper opportunity of dealing with matters relating to Scotland. Among these are the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) and others who are deeply concerned with the question of State management. It is important that they should have an opportunity of giving their voice and playing their part in the discussions on the Bill.

I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is prepared to take these steps with a view to facilitating the possibility of Scottish hon. Members taking part in the discussions on this Bill. In the Committee upstairs my two hon. Friends and I will be in a rather difficult position because it will be left to us to state the views of private Members on the licensing Bill for the whole of Scotland. While we flatter ourselves that we are very capable in many ways, we are not sure that we can state the Conservative point of view on licensing in the new towns of Scotland. Surely there must be some private Member on the Conservative side who is able to say what the Conservatives think about the Bill in regard to Scotland.

If I were to express a view I should say that Scotland does not want the Bill at all. I should say, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said, that Scotland had been tacked on to this Bill without wishing to be so treated. This matter does not concern Scotland so far as this Bill is concerned, but the House has decided on the principle and we now have to discuss principles as to the new law to be introduced in regard to these licences.

I have put down a Motion referring Clause 7, the Scottish Clause, to the Scottish Grand Committee. I realise, of course, that that probably will not be taken in the House unless the Government provide time for it. I can promise them that there will be no discussion on it so far as I am concerned. If the Government are prepared to accept that Motion, it will give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of making a contribution and will relieve the right hon. and learned Gentleman of some of the charge of cutting down the time to such an extent that much of the discussion of interest to those in the Southern half of the Kingdom would be of no use at all.

I am deeply sorry that this business was not better arranged. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is on the most friendly terms with his colleagues in all parts of the House, did not take the opportunity of seeing whether a more friendly arrangement could be come to than the juggernaut method of insisting that the Bill must be on the Statute Book before the end of the Session. I put my plea to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should give us a chance of discussing this business at greater leisure in the Scottish Grand Committee, which Committee is now free from the discussion of Estimates.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black (Wimbledon)

Two hon. Members who have taken part so far in this debate have paid me the compliment of making reference to me, but, in view of the Ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker earlier in the day, I should be out of order in referring to the circumstances in which, for the consideration of this Bill, I ceased to be a Member of Standing Committee C.

I shall not be out of order, I think, in covering some of the ground that has been covered by hon. Members speaking from the opposite side of the House. My general approach to the kind of problem we are considering today is fairly well known inside and outside this House. If anyone were in doubt as to my general approach to this kind of problem, perhaps the speech I made in our discussion on a Friday about a fortnight ago would clear up any possible doubt as to where I would stand generally on this kind of question.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

The hon. Member will know that every hon. Member knows that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), he has certain views and we respect him for them. What we would like to know is whether he resigned from the Committee, or was sacked.

Mr. Black

That was one matter with which Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled that it would be out of order to deal.

Mr. Hale

I regret to interfere, but this is a new technique to suggest incorrectly that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has given a Ruling which could be read incorrectly as ruling out a matter in which the House is interested. May I suggest that, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) was a permanent Member of the Committee, he could not cease to be a Member of the Committee except by an act of his own and not the action of the Selection Committee? Could he tell us whether he resigned, and whether it was at the request of the Whips. or his constituents, or of whom?

Mr. Speaker

My trouble was that as I had not heard the interpolation of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I did not know how the discussion started.

Mr. Mellish

I should be glad to explain that Mr. Speaker. While you were out of the Chair, a discussion arose regarding the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) not being a Member of the Committee when they considered this Bill, although he had been a permanent Member of the Committee up to that time. It was pointed out, while you were away, that in the place of the hon. Member for Wimbledon another hon. Member became a Member of the Committee and it was afterwards proved that the other hon. Member had some private interest in brewing. The suggestion was imputed that evidently there was some reason why the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who had been a permanent Member of the Committee, withdrew. We are trying to find out whether he withdrew because he wanted the other hon. Member to go on to the Committee with a vested interest, or whether the hon. Member for Wimbledon was sacked. We wanted to know why he was not a Member of the Committee at the time the Bill was considered.

Mr. Speaker

I can only say that from my general knowledge the Selection Committee has frequently to make changes in selection of the Committees for various reasons affecting hon. Members, and I do not think it is in order to discuss that at the moment. We cannot go into the motives of the Selection Committee in making an alteration of that sort. There may be 101 reasons.

Mr. Mellish

So far as we are concerned, no one is questioning the Selection Committee. All we wanted was a personal statement by the hon. Member for Wimbledon as to whether he resigned or was sacked.

Mr. Speaker

That is entirely for the hon. Member for Wimbledon, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to the Motion before the House. We are discussing this time-table Motion and, for whatever reason the hon. Member for Wimbledon ceased to be a Member of the Committee, it seems very remote from the question the House is considering of whether there should be a time-table or not.

Mr. Hale

As you were out of the Chamber at the time, Mr. Speaker, may I quote what I think were the facts? The point was made that when the Bill came to the Standing Committee the President of the United Kingdom Temperance Association either resigned, or was forced to resign from the Committee and a Member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society was put in his place. It was suggested that there was a question for consideration of some possibility of corruption in this matter. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) wished to make a personal explanation and surely he is entitled to make a personal explanation and a personal reply. We are most anxious that he should do so.

Mr. Speaker

If any implication was made against the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I should certainly allow him to clear himself.

Mr. Black

I did not regard what the right hon. Gentleman said as an imputation against me, but I am very glad now to have the opportunity of clearing up a matter which seems to be exciting the interest and curiosity of a great many hon. Members and about which, so far as I am concerned, there is no kind of mystery whatsoever, but a perfectly simple explanation. I was informed that the Sittings of this Committee on this Bill were likely to occupy a long period of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I had important business engagements on the mornings on which it was proposed that this Committee should sit, I considered it only right that I should ask to be discharged from the Committee for this Bill. Obviously I had not the slightest idea as to which Member might be selected by the Committee of Selection to occupy my place on the Committee. That was obviously a matter outside my knowledge and about which I could not possibly have had any knowledge.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

Can the hon. Member tell us by whom he was informed that the proceedings of this Committee would take a long time?

Mr. Hale

The Home Secretary said he thought it would be short.

Mr. Black

I am afraid I cannot recollect now. I should have thought it was fairly obvious from the nature of the case that the Committee proceedings were likely to be fairly extended. In any case, as I was heavily engaged on private business, I asked to be discharged and I had no idea of who would be put on the Committee in my place. There is no mystery whatever about the matter.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

Does the hon. Member know whether all Conservative Members were so informed or whether he alone was informed that it was going to be so long?

Mr. Black

I have not the slightest knowledge of that matter; I do not know. I have tried to be entirely frank with the House, to tell the House everything I know about the matter, and I do not know any more than I have told the House already. So far as I am concerned, there is no kind of mystery whatever about this matter.

Mr. Wilkins

Will the hon. Member now admit that he was mis-informed, and that the Bill is not to take a long time?

Mr. Black

I do not think that that is a matter into which I have any need to enter.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that a rather grave matter arises here. We understand that the hon. Member withdrew from the Standing Committee because it was represented to him that the Bill was to take a long time. I think it is reasonable to assume that, although the hon. Member could not recollect the name, that representation was made to him by someone in the counsels of the Government. But we now know that, so far from the Committee taking a long time, we are being asked to pass a Motion which will prevent it from taking a long time. It therefore looks as if the hon. Member—we all sympathise with him—has been the victim of a piece of sharp practice.

Mr. K. Thompson

On a point of order—

Mr. Stewart

I submit that a serious point of order does arise. Here we have a Member who was a Member of a Standing Committee and whose membership of that Standing Committee had the sanction of the Selection Committee. He was induced to withdraw from membership of that Committee by representations which we now find have no basis in fact. I submit that a serious point of order affecting the dignity of the House arises.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that any point of order arises at all. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) gave us clearly to understand that he was afraid that he would not be able to give due attention to the proceedings of the Committee because of other calls upon his time: he understood that the proceedings would take some time, and he asked the Committee of Selection to be discharged. I do not see what is wrong in that.

Mr. Stewart

Further to that point of order, and with great respect, I am not sure that I made my point quite clear. The hon. Member withdrew because representations were made to him which subsequently proved to be false. Is it not a very serious matter in relation to the procedure of this House that Members' membership of a Standing Committee should be influenced by false representations being made to them as to the length of time a piece of business will take? Would you, Mr. Speaker, advise hon. Members, in the event of similar representations again being made in like circumstances, not to believe a word of what is said to them?

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order in what the hon. Member has submitted. The hon. Member for Wimbledon might well have thought, for one reason or another, and other Members may have thought and have told him, that the proceedings might take a long time. There may now be a different situation, but there is no question of false representation.

Sir Sidney Marshall (Sutton and Cheam)

My hon. Friend may have been so informed by Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Black

Having cleared up that matter. I should like now to say a little in regard to the real matter which we are debating. While I have listened, as I am sure the House always listens, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson)—I am quite certain that everyone in the House would pay tribute to the sincerity of the feelings which he has expressed on this matter—I must say that on this particular issue, while I agree with him on so many other matters, I am unable to accept at all the arguments which he has addressed to the House today.

I wish to make three quite brief submissions to the House about the subject matter of our debate. The first is that a tremendous amount of heat and moral fervour have been engendered in the course of our discussions today, but I submit to the House that there is no kind of moral issue involved in this matter which we are debating. We are not considering whether there shall be licensed houses or no licensed houses in the new towns; we are not considering whether there shall be more or fewer licensed houses in them; and we are not considering whether the licensed houses in them shall be open for longer or shorter hours.

We are considering, I suggest, the simple issue that, granted that there are to be licensed houses in the new towns, are they to be under what is analogous to the Carlisle system of State ownership and State management, or are they to be carried on according to the conditions which generally exist in other parts of the country, and be carried on by private enterprise? That is really the only issue which is involved in this case.

Mr. Woodburn

The hon. Member has not the advantage of being on the Committee, otherwise he would have learned there that there is another issue involved. Evidently the brewers have agreed among themselves that, in the event of this Bill being passed, only one brewer will have the licences in a new town, will sell only one type of drink and will decide the price not only of that drink but of cider and other stock. Does not the hon. Member think that there is involved the moral principle of the liberty of the subject to buy what he wants?

Mr. Black

I do not agree that that is a fair description of the issue involved, as I understand the matter. I do not hold the view that there is any moral issue involved in this matter. I take the view that it is simply the old question, which has been debated over a long period of years, as to whether the Carlisle system of State ownership and management is best or whether the conditions that exist over the generality of the country are to be preserved. As I say, there is not, in my view, a moral issue involved in this matter at all.

It is a fact that reference was made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North to the Carlisle system, and he found in it a great deal which he considered it right to praise and he held it up before the House as a system which we should do very well to have in the new towns. But he did not mention the fact that in every important particular, from a temperance standpoint, the Carlisle system has nothing to recommend it, on the facts of the case, compared with the licensing system which operates in the remainder of the country.

He did not mention that it is a fact that over a long period of years the convictions for drunkenness in Carlisle have been heavier than the average convictions for drunkenness in the remainder of the 85 county boroughs of this country. So that if any hon. Members think there is any kind of moral issue, any kind of temperance issue, involved in this matter at all, I would say that those statistics would tip the scale in favour of the system that operates generally throughout the country, rather than in favour of a system which produces a higher than average incidence of drunkenness.

The second point I wish to put before the House is that it has not, in the past at any rate, been the view of Members of the party opposite that State ownership and State management of the drink trade is something which should meet with their approval. Over a long period of years outstanding Members of the party opposite have been against State ownership and State management, and have declared themselves against it on very many occasions.

While I do not wish to detain the House long, I would refer to one notable case, that of the late Lord Snowdon, who made the statement that he was one of the half-dozen men who were more responsible than anyone else for bringing into being the experiment of State ownership and State management in Carlisle; and that, as a result of his experience there, he came to be bitterly disappointed with the results of the experiment. He became convinced that the extension of the Carlisle system to other parts of the country offered no attractions from the point of view of making a contribution to the greater sobriety of the nation. That was the judgment of a man who had a great deal of experience of this matter, and whose views on the matter were converted from one side to the other as a result of the experience he had of the Carlisle system.

My third point is that reference has been made to a letter or a telegram sent by the Methodist Conference. I have not had the benefit of seeing the contents of that letter or telegram, and quite obviously every hon. Member would wish to give consideration to any communication from such an entirely responsible body of public opinion as is represented by the Methodist Conference. But as this point has been raised, I am bound to make this further point. It would be a great mistake for hon. Members of this House to believe that if the Methodist Church has expressed itself in favour of State ownership and State management in the new towns, that view would be generally endorsed by most of the churches and chapels, and the temperance organisations of this country.

I can tell the House that the Baptist Churches of this country, of which I am a member, have consistently, year after year over a long period, expressed their opposition to State ownership and State management, and that view holds the field today. I happen to be a member of the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, the body which embraces every Church in this country, from the Roman Catholics to the Salvation Army. It is a fact that this Council, which is the mouth-piece of the churches and chapels and the religious organisations of this country on temperance questions, has on every occasion refused to give its endorsement or support to the principle of State management and State ownership.

I say, therefore, that it is quite wrong for hon. Members of this House to advance the view that, speaking generally the view of the churches and chapels and the temperance societies is in favour of State ownership and State management. I am quite certain, from such information as I have, that the majority view is on the other side, and that it has always been on the other side.

Mr. J. Hudson

With reference to the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, can the hon. Gentleman say that they would agree to hand back to the brewers any part of the State management scheme?

Mr. Black

I do not believe they have ever expressed themselves one way or the other on that issue. But what I do say, and to this I adhere, is that they have consistently, as a matter of principle, declined to give their support to the principle of State ownership and State management. On that point I am quite emphatic, and I am quite certain that I am correct.

I think I have said enough to make plain my own view in this matter. For 30 years at least I have been consistently opposed to State ownership and State management. I have opposed it because I think that it has failed to produce the benefits claimed for it when the experiment was first begun at Carlisle, and I have—

Mr. S. Silverman

How could the hon. Member know that 30 years ago?

Mr. Black

I did not say I knew it 30 years ago. I have been opposing State ownership and State management for 30 years, and I am fortified in my opposition by everything I have seen in connection with the Carlisle experiment, and by every statistic which it has been possible to gather from Carlisle and to put into comparison with statistics from other areas of the country.

As I was saying, for 30 years I have personally opposed State ownership and State management. For that reason I found myself in no difficulty in voting in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill we are considering, and I find myself now in no difficulty in supporting the Government in the step which they propose to take.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

If I were, unhappily, to be the Parliamentary adviser to the Licensed Victuallers' Association I would recommend them to support the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) as Chairman of the Band of Hope Union—

Mr. Black

As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, and as he is imputing inconsistency to me, let me tell him that the United Kingdom Band of Hope Union, throughout the 100 years of its history, has always been opposed to State management and State ownership.

Mr. Bevan

We know the reason for that, and from the opening sentences of the hon. Member's speech, we know the reason why he did not go on the Committee. Having this spendid opportunity of coming to grips with the licensed victuallers he found his business engagements would not permit him to go along. That is the reason why I say he is one of the most tepid champions of temperance I have ever seen.

Mr. Black

I would only claim this, that any contribution I have made towards the solution of the temperance problem is one that I would willingly offer to compare with any contribution made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan

I must confess that I have never been a member of a temperance organisation. All I was endeavouring to point out was that a more Uriah Heep-like contribution than we have had from the hon. Member for Wimbledon I have never heard in my life.

We all know why the Band of Hope Union and the temperance organisations have been against the State selling alcoholic drinks. In exactly the same way, a good many religious people are opposed to the State taking any revenues from gambling, and for exactly the same reason—because they believe that it is an evil and sinful thing and that the State ought not to touch it.

These are very good reasons, which were carefully concealed by the ambiguities of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I hope that the hon. Member's associates will realise that, having got the opportunity of sitting upon the Committee, he pleaded business interests, because he had been informed that the Committee might last a long time, and that then his place was taken by a brewer, whose business interest it was to be there.

Mr. E. Johnson

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am now a permanent Member of this Committee? I am not a brewer, nor am I a member of a temperance society, and it may well be that I took the place of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black).

Mr. Bevan

We shall come to the hon. Member in question, because there was a very serious statement made earlier in the proceedings, and we shall have to return to it.

We understand that we cannot now consider the Selection Committee. A Selection Committee is a very important body of this House, but it does not move hon. Members about like pieces on a chess board. Hon. Members are consulted, and even the hon. Member for Wimbledon said at the very beginning that one of the reasons why he sought to leave the Committee was because it might sit a long time. At any rate, he was informed that it was to sit a long time. He did not tell us who told him. His memory was too short. His memory, as far as I can see, is as tepid to him as he is to the temperance cause.

The fact is that he was told, not presumably, by an hon. Member of the Opposition, that this Committee would last a long time, and that was the end of June. So it was then the intention of the Government that this Session was to continue for a long time after the Recess. That was obviously the intention. [Interruption.] Yes, but there was another alternative intention which I must put before the House.

Therefore, they did not bother. They said, "All right, we know it will last a long time; nevertheless, we are going to carry business over and finish it in the autumn." So that one interpretation of the fact that there was no hurry about this Bill earlier was that the Government intended to have a long Session, and that fact was borne out by what the hon. Member for Wimbledon said. But there is another construction to be placed upon the facts, and that is that the Government deliberately did not send the Bill upstairs before—where it could have been sent at any time in the last four months—because they intended the present manoeuvre. It is a question of one of two constructions, and we should like to know which.

No one yet has told the House, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not do so when moving the Motion, why it was that this Bill, now regarded as so important, has been neglected for four months. I know that the great difficulty about these debates on the Guillotine is that each side says the same thing when in different positions. Members supporting the Government opposed the Guillotine when we were in office, and we oppose it now they are in office. So they say, "Oh, well, these debates about the Guillotine are sham debates; they do not matter, because the Opposition is doing exactly what we would do if we were in power." So there is great amusement, and nobody bothers very much.

But, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in what, if I may respectfully say so, was a remarkably good speech, there is here also the unusual nature of the circumstances with which we are faced, because, in the past, even when Governments had majorities and even when they had the power of the Guillotine, they left certain Bills to die if they had failed to get them through the House, They always had to consider the value of the Bill against the constitutional propriety of using a Guillotine at the end of the Session.

If it is to be taken for granted that any Bill, no matter how unimportant, if it fails to get through the House in the course of the ordinary business in the Session, is to be pushed through at the end of the Session by the use of the Guillotine, that is rigging the constitution, manipulating the rules of the House of Commons and is a dangerous inroad upon Parliamentary rights, because all the Government need to do, in circumstances like that, is to hold back a Bill with which, because it is unpopular, or unattractive or otherwise difficult to get through, they do not want to trouble too much, and then drive it through under the Guillotine at the end of the Session.

In such circumstances, the use of the Guillotine does not become a proper instrument to enable the Government of the day to fight down fractious opposition. It becomes a method by which legislation can be effectively concealed from the population outside and the House of Commons be prevented from properly examining it inside. That seems to me to be a very dangerous thing.

Reference has been made to a statement which I made in the House last May, when I tried to point out to the House that the Government were faced with a situation in which they had to realise that they had too small a Parliamentary majority to be able to put through controversial legislation, except legislation of the utmost importance, and that it was Parliamentarily wrong to try to drive through the House of Commons, with such a small majority, legislation bitterly resented by the Opposition, unless that legislation could be shown to be in the interests of the good government of the country and for the national wellbeing.

With that proposition I do not believe any hon. Member of the House would privately dissent. It was revealed during the last Parliament and again during this Parliament. So long as the Government have so small a majority, legislation ought to be confined to that kind of legislation which is manifestly in the national interest or which the Government consider to be of paramount importance. No one can say that about this Bill. The Guillotine is a very dangerous and powerful instrument in the hands of the Executive, and it ought never to have been invoked at all for such trivialities; otherwise, Parliamentary democracy will be seriously undermined.

It is no good for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to stand at the Treasury Box, as he did this afternoon, and say to us with such obvious sincerity that he moved this Motion with the utmost reluctance. Why did he not move to drop the Bill with even less reluctance? It is what other Governments have done before. Hon. Members both on this side of the House and on the other side have sat here at the end of a Session and seen Bill after Bill destroyed. Why has that not happened—unless there is something very much more sinister? That is what we want to know. I ask hon. Members to realise that the country is watching this debate very closely. I think this is to be one of the most damaging debates for the party opposite which we have had in this House, because there is something squalid about their present behaviour.

We heard earlier that there is a body called the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society and that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who was a member of the Standing Committee and who went on in place of the hon. Member for Wimbledon who resigned—off goes the temperance man and on goes the brewer—was a member of the Finance Committee of that Parliamentary Committee.

There is nothing wrong with having Parliamentary committees; there are a very large number of them. There are miners' committees, and have been for many years, trade union committees, textile committees, and all sorts of committees of Members of this House associated with industries outside, and very valuable they are because they keep Members of this House in touch with expert opinion. Also, from time to time, ad hoc committees are established to deal with certain Bills and to pass on information from outside to hon. Members engaged on such Bills. That is highly desirable and in the interest of the working of the House of Commons and of Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Marlowe

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. Bevan

I wanted to finish this point, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Marlowe

I only want to save the right hon. Gentleman from falling into the error into which he fell before. He is really under a misapprehension in referring to a committee of this House. The committee referred to is not a committee of Members of this House at all.

Mr. Bevan

We were informed that there was a Parliamentary Committee of whose Finance Committee the hon. Member for Wokingham was the chairman. That is perfectly correct because the committees to which I have referred very often have their meetings convened through the Whips. Everybody knows who is a member of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do not say "No" because I know "Yes." The fact of the matter is that that has been the normal Parliamentary practice as long as I have been here. Recognised committees of Members of the House of Commons have normally been convened in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") If hon. Members opposite say "No", they are not telling the truth.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

The right hon. Gentleman is not.

Mr. Bevan

What is dangerous here—because everybody knows that the brewing interests have a peculiar relationship to politics—is that the Members of this committee should be unknown and that some Members of Parliament should be intimately associated with outside organisations which spend large sums of money influencing legislation by propaganda—and it may be in other ways; I do not know—and that Members of this House should be unaware of the members of those committees.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

But they are known. I am not a brewer, although I am interested in the liquor trade. The Brewers' Parliamentary Committee is, I understand, a branch of the Brewers' Society and a list of its members is published in the Brewers' Year Book. There is no mystery about it.

Mr. Bevan

We did not know even this afternoon that the hon. Member for Wokingham was himself a brewer, but we do know that he went on to this Committee and voted on this matter without declaring that he was a brewer. Afterwards we were informed—and this will have to be investigated—that he said at the time that he had no direct interest in the matter.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) did not say that he was a brewer. The first thing he got up and said in Committee was that he was a brewer.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Bevan

No, we must get the facts right. The hon. Member for Wokingham voted before that and only afterwards declared having a direct interest. Later, in fact, he declared that he had no direct interest in the public houses in this area, but it subsequently transpired that this was the business in which he had a direct interest.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

It is within the recollection of the Home Secretary that when the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) made his declaration it was a very qualified declaration, and was made after he voted.

Mr. Bevan

The point I am trying to make is that we are here discussing a Bill vitally affecting licensed victuallers' interests and that we also have a very queer Parliamentary set-up which we would like to have investigated. Indeed, unless hon. Members opposite get the whole business cleaned up they will be under suspicion as being Parliamentary tools of the brewers' interests. Furthermore, we are fortified in that suspicion because we believe that the brewers are heavy subscribers to the Conservative Party funds, and until evidence is produced to the contrary we shall go on believing that. Therefore, until the Conservative Party have the courage to publish their accounts they will be under that suspicion.

The assumption that we reach is that the Government intended, first of all, either to have plenty of Parliamentary time in which to get this Bill through and therefore did not bother about sending it upstairs to Standing Committee, or they said, "Let us send it up at the end and use the Guillotine to push it through." The explanation given this afternoon by the right hon. and learned Gentleman why they had not proceeded with this Bill before in Committee was the preoccupation of the Government with the economic and financial difficulties bequeathed by us.

Let us have a look at that; let us examine it for a moment. The only single explanation given why the Committee were not asked to consider this Bill four months ago and why we are now having the Guillotine is that the services of the Members of Standing Committee C were absolutely invaluable to the Government in dealing with the economic and financial difficulties which had been bequeathed by us. This is the picture which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now attempting to convey to the country as a whole, that all Members of Parliament, not only Members of Standing Committee C—because it could not have been known at that time how valuable their services would be in dealing with the matter—have been giving such assiduous attention to dealing with the financial and economic crisis bequeathed by us that they could not send this Bill upstairs to Committee before this.

That is the explanation; and it is the only one we have had. Four months elapse and then it is decided to have a Guillotine and rush the Bill through the Committee. Now, a week after the Prime Minister's announcement that the economic and financial situation was so grave we are going to have a Guillotine. That is the only explanation we have, and so we now have once more displayed to us the full sense of priorities of the Government.

As the Prime Minister has said, we are standing on a trap-door. [An HON. MEMBER: The cellar door."] We have been standing on it now for several weeks. Next week, at the end of the Session, before the Recess, when there will not be much time for consideration of what is to be done when Parliament will be away, we are to have a further announce-from the Government about the other measures that they propose. Such is their assessment of the priorities in their decision on how Parliamentary time is to be used that they postponed consideration of measures to deal with the economic situation of the country and asked Parliament solemly to discuss for all hours of the day and night in the House, in Committee upstairs and on Report and Third Reading who shall have the chance of making profits from selling beer in the new towns.

That is what the Tories are telling the country. That is their sense of urgency. It is possible for the Ministry of Labour to stop workers having increases in wages; but do not stop the brewers having their profits. What the Conservative Party are doing, of course, is giving the price that their paymaster demands; and they are doing it cynically, frivolously, without any regard at all to the moral values involved. We have gone on now for month after month and we have been waiting for proposals from the Government to deal with the financial and economic situation. We have not had them and are not to have them until next week.

I say to hon. Members opposite that this is really not the way in which Parliament ought to be treated or this country ought to be treated. They ought not to ask the people to make sacrifices in these days and to appreciate the gravity of the national crisis, both financial and economic, and, at the same time, waste the time of Parliament frivolously with repaying the brewers for the funds that they give to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Hitchin)

On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled, Sir, to make these scarcely veiled allegations of corruption against the Conservative Party and therefore, by implication, against the head of the Conservative Party organisation, who is a member of another place?

Mr. Speaker

The rule in this matter is that it is frequently possible to make allegations against a party as a whole which it would be grossly improper to make against an individual. Although one deprecates language of an inflammatory and taxing character it has been frequently ruled that it is in order to make allegations against a whole party that one cannot make against an individual.

Mr. Fisher

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and further to that point, this is a matter of some substance. Apparently someone in the Conservative Party organisation is thought to have made a deal and to have accepted money from the brewers. My point is that if someone has done that—and that is the allegation—will the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) tell us who it is that he has in mind?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) would be promptly ruled out of order if he did any such thing. What I have stated is the rule. One can make allegations against a party which one cannot make against individuals, and the right hon. Gentleman did refer to the Conservative Party which is a very much wider target than hon. Members in this House; and the same thing can be said by one party against the other.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order. Is it not frequently the case that parties and other organisations of people habitually commit things which every single member of that party or organisation would be ashamed to do in his private life?

Mr. Speaker

I should not like to commit myself to that assertion.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to make allegations against a party, is it in order to make allegations against part of a party? We on this side of the House want to know against whom the allegation is made?

Mr. Speaker

What is out of order is to make an allegation against an individual, and particularly an hon. Member of this House. That is quite out of order. These allegations are frequently made by one side against another as to parties as a whole and I do not think I could stop them.

Mr. Bevan

I have not made any statement about the Tory Party in anything like the language that was used by the Leader of the Conservative Party. I could not bring myself to be so unkind, but I will read that statement to the House. It has been used earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). As hon. Members opposite consider I have been unfair to the Conservative Party I only want to try to put myself in the same relationship as the Prime Minister himself, and I wish I could do it as well as he did.

He said that the Tory Party was one of great vested interests. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] In 1908, but the party are now much worse; they have been corrupted much longer. The Prime Minister said then that the Tory Party supported corruption at home and covered it up by aggression abroad. He said that they stood for Sentiment by the bucketful and patriotism by the Imperial pint. The open hand at the public Exchequer and the open door at the public house. That was the present Prime Minister a long time ago. But I am not saying that. All that I am saying is that I have seen many Guillotine Motions in this House and I have never seen one used so frivolously or at a time of graver public concern about our condition as a nation. If the Government wanted to do themselves credit and wanted to rise to the occasion the best thing they could do now would be to withdraw this Motion and to drop the Bill.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)

I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) himself who, on a previous occasion, referred to the necessity to puncture the bladder of verbiage with the poignard of truth, and it may be necessary to make some reference to what is the truth with regard to this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman has put forward two possible reasons why the Bill was being dealt with in this way at this stage of the Session. Both of the possibilities propounded by him were sinister. There is a third reason which he did not suggest at all. The motive is neither of the sinister motives which he suggested. The reason is that this Bill is a very short and simple Bill which it should have been possible to get through the Standing Committee in the remaining days of this Session without any difficulty at all.

It is a one-Clause Bill in that there is one effective Clause—Clause 1—which de-nationalises the public houses. The remaining Clauses are procedural in that they set up the machinery to deal with the licensing of the houses when they have been de-nationalised.

Mr. Hale

I should like to refer the hon. and learned Member, who, I know, has a wide knowledge and experience of these matters, to the fact to which my right hon. Friend alluded. This is not a one-Clause Bill. This repeals the Licensing Act, 1910. It reduces licensing justices to a position which I think no justice would consent to occupy. It introduces a new system. When the hon. and learned Member addressed the House on the Transport Bill Guillotine Motion he said that he was doing so because of his special qualification of not being a Member of the Standing Committee and, therefore, able to bring an unbiased point of view to bear on the discussion. I want to remind him of that statement because he is, in fact, a Member of this Standing Committee.

Mr. Marlowe

I do not remember my intervention on the Transport Bill Guillotine Motion, but I did not know that being a Member of the Standing Committee was a declarable interest. I am a Member of Standing Committee C, and that is why I referred to my interpretation of the Bill. I agree that it is possible to have different interpretations of what is meant by a one-Clause Bill. It is perfectly right to say that there is one Clause which has far reaching effects. The effective part of this Bill is contained in Clause 1 and the rest of the Bill consists of the machinery by which the change which it makes is to be operated.

Before I deal with the merits of the Guillotine Motion I want to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about this Parliamentary Committee. I do not know whether it is a declarable interest to act in a professional capacity, as I often do, for some sections of the brewing trade, but in case it should be thought to be so, I make that declaration. I have a fairly intimate acquaintance with these matters and I have twice tried to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from falling into the error into which he has fallen. I could not help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman felt that this matter of the Parliamentary Committee provided him with such splendid ammunition that he did not want to know what the true position was.

The truth is this. Many organisation in this country have what they call a Parliamentary committee. The T.U.C., the Co-operative Society and all the chambers of commerce up and down the country have Parliamentary committees. It has nothing to do with a Committee of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman is too ready to smell corruption when it is not there. The truth is that the Brewers' Society, in common with many other organisations of this kind, have a Parliamentary Committee which is nothing to do with this House at all.

Apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) declared himself to be a member of that committee. I do not know the names of any other members of the committee, but I do not believe that any of them are Members of this House.

Mr. Bevan

Are there any other Members of this House on this committee?

Mr. Marlowe

As I have just said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham told us that he was a member of that committee, but I do not know the names of any of the other members, so I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I was saying that as far as I know there are not any. There may be. I do not accept responsibility for that statement, but the only declaration I have heard is the declaration made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

Mr. Bevan

But that is the whole gravamen of my case. If there are other Members opposite on that Committee, then those Members who are speaking in favour of the Guillotine Motion are suspect unless they declare it.

Mr. Marlowe

The members of the Committee are known. I only said that I did not happen to know them myself. Somebody has told us this afternoon that there is a journal called the "Brewers' Almanac," which contains the names of the members. I think that all that is necessary is that any Member of this House who happens also to be a member of that committee, if he was taking part in a debate in this House, should be expected to declare his interest in that matter.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

The Parliamentary Committee is listed in the "Brewers' Almanac," a copy of which is in the reference Library. It is surprising that anyone who intended to refer to the members of that committee should not have gone to the trouble of looking up the names in that book.

Mr. Marlowe

I was certainly under the impression that the information was readily obtainable. Certainly, in the Standing Committee upstairs the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has made reference to the contents of this book to which I have referred, which I believe is called the "Brewers' Almanac." I always think of it, whenever the hon. and learned Member refers to it, along with Erskine May, as obviously the sort of book which should be advertised on the bookstalls as "Bing's Bedside Book." The book is readily available and, no doubt, if the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale wants to know the names of the members of this Committee he can easily find them.

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in making sinister reference to the summoning of a committee of this kind by the Whips, implying that it was a Committee of this House. It is nothing to do with this House at all. It is a perfectly ordinary committee of the kind which are possessed by many perfectly respectable organisations with which the right hon. Gentleman has been associated during his lifetime. There is nothing unusual or sinister about it.

I now want to refer to the question of the actual justification for introducing a time-table for this Bill. The Bill could easily have got through its Committee stage in time before the end of the Session if there had been a willingness by hon. Members opposite to make the best use of the time available. But nobody who has been on that Committee, or anybody who has not been on it but has read the Report about it, and is prepared to take an unprejudiced view, could hold otherwise than that there has been no desire to make the best use of the time.

Mr. Hale

I have found the reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT to which the hon. and learned Member has alluded and I am sure he would like to have it. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) said in the Standing Committee: I should, first of all, declare my interest in the brewing trade. This was probably due to the fact that I had declared that I had not any direct financial interest, whatever my general interest was. The hon. Member went on: So that there may be no doubt about it, I should like to make it quite clear that I am a director of brewery companies. I am not an executive director, and so far as I am aware none of the companies with which I am concerned is connected with licensed houses in the new towns. At a later stage I intervened and pointed out that I had asked a question about the houses and named them, and that the information I had obtained from a London newspaper was that the company of which he was a member owned every one of the houses about which I had asked the question. I could not confirm that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch raised the matter again, and the hon. Member for Wokingham said: I do not think that the duties of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society are pertinent to this Amendment"— not to the others, but to this one— but the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in suggesting that I am a member of the Parliamentary Committee. I am also a member of the council and of the Finance Committee. Later my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch said that the hon. Member for Wokingham had stated that his membership of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society did not influence what he told the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend went on to point out: The Brewers' Almanac says that the Parliamentary Committee is 'responsible for consideration of Bills and all matters affecting the trade in Parliament, and for taking such action as may be necessary in the interests of the trade.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 16th July, 1952; c. 68–95.] That is where we had got then, that a Member of the Standing Committee was a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society responsible for consideration of Bills and all matters affecting the trade in Parliament, and for taking such action as may be necessary in the interests of the trade, to have Bills amended and for making representations to the House. That is as far as we have got. Does not the hon. and learned Member think that as the hon. Member for Wokingham is on the finance committee we ought to have some information about the functions of that committee?

Mr. Marlowe

What the hon. Member has read out are the proper functions of Parliamentary committees of the kind to which I was referring. Many of these organisations have Parliamentary committees in order to make proper representations in the right way. There is not a Member of this House who has not been lobbied by the Association of Municipal Corporations. That involves every local authority in the country; they have a Parliamentary committee for the purpose of lobbying Members, and there is not one of us who has not been heavily burdened with the literature which they and similar Parliamentary committees put out.

With regard to the other point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that relates to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and I cannot answer for him.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know whether the proceedings of that Finance Committee show how much money the brewers pay to Tory Party funds?

Mr. Marlowe

I have not the slightest idea. I am not a member of that committee. I do not know anything about it. I heard of it for the first time today, as did hon. Members opposite. Apparently it is referred to in the "Brewers' Almanac"—and has been for a long time—and I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman exercises the same ingenuity in research as does the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch he could get a great deal more information about it.

The only point I wanted to make, in conclusion, was that in the 10 hours that this Committee has sat—for four meetings of 2½ hours' each—roughly 5½ hours have been spent on procedural points and 4½ hours in dealing with the actual merits of the Amendments before the Committee. That means that about 55 per cent. of the time has been taken up with procedural points, mostly on the question of when the Committee were to sit again. I began to despair of the Committee doing anything but spend every sitting deciding when to sit next and never making any progress at all.

Mr. Bevan

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to tell the House why four months went by before this Bill was sent to Committee? I should like to know, just as a matter of curiosity.

Mr. Marlowe

I began by saying that the right hon. Member had put forward two alternatives, both of them sinister. But it is not necessary to look for any such sinister motives. I am not in the inner councils of the Government, so I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman more than my view. I hope that he will not take anything I say as authoritative. I can only say that I imagine that one of the considerations was that this was so obviously a Bill which, if it had been treated in the proper way by the Opposition, did not require more than four weeks to get through the Committee stage and therefore to send it upstairs in June was ample time to get it through before the end of the Session.

There was no need to send it up sooner because if it were sent up in June plenty of time would have been left. But it has become evident over the last few months that the Opposition are not so eager to depose the Government from power as they once appeared to be. In February, when a decision had to be made whether this Bill should go upstairs I can imagine the Government saying, "We appear to have a fairly eager Opposition and we have only a majority of two in Committee upstairs. It may be that if this Bill goes upstairs we shall risk defeat."

But as time has gone on it has become clear that the Opposition has not the slightest intention of defeating this Government and has no wish to take over the responsibilities of Government itself. The Government might then have said "It has become abundantly clear that a Bill can safely be sent upstairs and whatever happens we can be sure that there is not the slightest doubt that if necessary a Member of the Opposition will abstain to ensure that the Government is not defeated."

Mr. M. Stewart

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so certain that Bills can be got through upstairs, what is the point of this Motion?

Mr. Marlowe

It is a question of the time-table. It is not a question of getting the Bill through; it is a question when it is to be got through. The Government are concerned to see that this Bill is got through before the end of the Session. It is a question of the time to be allotted, and nobody taking a dispassionate view of the matter could be left in any doubt that the time which is now vaguely suggested—my right hon. and learned Friend said that it would need something like six more Sittings, which would give 10 Sittings altogether—would be ample.

Clearly the Government have set their hand to the passing of this Bill. Having once done so they would be failing in their duty if they did not use their powers to see the Bill completed in a reasonable time. I make no complaints about hon. Members opposite using such weapons as are at their hand by way of opposition. That is perfectly legitimate tactics, but if they adopt those tactics they cannot complain if the Government also use the weapons they have at their hand.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

In the course of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society and he said that this was available in the "Brewers' Almanac." The fact is that the latest issue of the "Brewers' Almanac," which I have here, does contain the list—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

Order. I thought the hon. and gallant Member was going to ask a question. Apparently he is making a speech.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Would it help to refresh the memory of the hon. and learned Gentleman if I asked him whether he was aware that the Parliamentary Com- mittee of the Brewers' Society consisted—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. The hon. and gallant Member must wait his turn and make his point in debate.

8.6 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

I am glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), because I think he has quite misunderstood what is agitating hon. Members on this side of the House. I think that he and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) have quite misunderstood the mood of the country. I would ask the Government and hon. Members opposite if they have looked at the leaders in the various newspapers since the discussion of this Guillotine Motion was announced. I have not seen any leader in favour of it.

I should like to go on from there to say that I hope that I shall be able to present a dispassionate viewpoint. I do not belong to the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society or any other body—or to the Committee upstairs—and I must confess great disinterest, in that I am not likely to frequent the pubs in these new towns whether they are State-owned or private enterprise. I am trying to present the viewpoint of the ordinary people.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon said that a good deal of heat has been engendered in this debate. That is entirely the fault of the Government. Anybody could have told the Government and the Tory Party what would have been the effect in the country of producing this Motion today, at a time when we have been told that a Guillotine is introduced only when there is a matter of great urgency brought before the House. This afternoon the Home Secretary said that one of the things he would have to prove would be the urgency of this particular Measure. I want to ask the Government where the urgency is in relation to this Bill.

We have heard stories of the Opposition delaying this Bill upstairs. Of course they did. This Bill was not contained in the programme which the Government put before the electorate, and yet it suddenly assumes such an enormous importance that business has to be held up to get it through. I have sat here since half-past three this afternoon, except for half an hour when I went to a committee. I say that because the question I want to ask may have been answered during that half hour. But, if it has not been answered, I should be glad if it could be referred to in the winding-up speech of the Government. I have been trying to sort out what was the urgency about this Bill and why it was necessary for this Guillotine Motion to be pushed through today.

As I understand it, there are things called brewsters sessions. I have tried to find out the date of the next brewsters sessions, and I understand that normally they are held during the first 14 days in February. This afternoon the Home Secretary made a remark which I may not have heard correctly. I should be glad to have it explained. I thought he used the term "transferred sessions." I want to know why there is this hurry. Are the Tories going to rush this Guillotine Motion through—as they can do by force of numbers if they are all here—and then suddenly produce from somewhere some alternative to the normal brewsters sessions which are held on the first 14 days in February? I think the country and the House would be very glad to have an answer to that question.

Still dealing with the question of urgency, which has been ruled a sufficient reason for bringing this Motion forward today—and therefore we can discuss this aspect—I want to ask the Government why it is that, when they are so far behind with their time-table, and when we hear so much of these economic perils; when, because of a shortage of a certain type of steel, there has been a good deal of unemployment in my constituency, and when there has been unemployment, too, in the cotton industry; the Government are able to bring nothing forward urgently to deal with those matters and yet are able to rush this Bill through in the brewers' interests. I would not be a Tory at the next election for anything, and still less would I be a Tory prepared to say that the brewers' interests were so great that a whole day in the House of Commons, and I hope a whole night if hon. Members have anything to say on the matter, should be devoted to discussing the Bill.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke about nationalisation. I do not know whether he meant nationalisation of the brewing industry or of the public houses; but, in any event, it is absolute rubbish. I do not know a great deal about the brewing trade, but I do know that the party opposite say that people should have freedom of choice. I recall in a debate some time ago that the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), spoke on the subject, and I was forced to the conclusion that he had not the faintest notion of what a tied house was; and, in fact, by the time he had finished I wondered whether I knew what it was myself.

I certainly thought that the party opposite believed in setting the people free, according to their ideas of what that might be; but apparently they want to set them free in every direction except that of choosing the sort of drink they can get at a public house. One or two hon. Members opposite have stated that in some of these new towns people have voted against the nationalisation of this industry. When the question was put to them, I wonder whether it was explained that the Labour Party had sought to set the people free so that they could choose the type of drink they wanted?

Mr. Marlowe

The hon. Lady may have been misled by an intervention by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who gave the House the impression that the Bill had something to do with tied houses. It has nothing to do with tied houses except in so far as it implements Conservative policy of setting licensees free instead of their being tied to the State.

Miss Burton

I do not know what is the hon. and learned Member's taste in this matter; as I have said, I have no taste at all in these matters of drink. I understand that at present nine out of 10 public houses in the country are owned by the brewing industry. Some of my hon. Friends suggest that there are more, but I will be generous and say nine out of 10. I should not have thought that was by any means setting the people free. The hon. and learned Member for Hove must know that if we have tied houses, those houses have to sell the type of drink which the brewery prescribes, if that is the right word.

Squadron Leader Cooper

Would the hon. Lady tell us from where the State public houses in Carlisle get their beer?

Miss Burton

I thought I might have one or two interventions like that. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in Carlisle the public has had freedom to choose their own bottled beer and that there has been some freedom of choice in draught beer. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me if that is the case in a tied house?

Mr. C. J. M. Alport (Colchester) rose—

Miss Burton

I gave way to the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Lady should address herself to me.

Miss Burton

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I hope that I shall be able to give way in order to allow the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South to answer that question?

Squadron Leader Cooper

The answer to the hon. Lady is that in Carlisle there are only the State public houses to choose from, but in an ordinary town there are very many public houses of different breweries.

Miss Burton

I expect you will have noticed. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when people cannot answer your question, they answer another.

Mr. A. Hargreaves (Carlisle)

Would my hon. Friend give way a moment?

Miss Burton

Could I first finish with the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South? The question which I addressed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman was this. He said that in Carlisle there are only State public houses. That may be so, but the point I am making is this, in the State public houses in Carlisle there is a greater freedom of choice of what the public drink than there is in the tied houses elsewhere. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with that statement or disagree with it; and if the latter, will he give the names of public houses where there is a greater freedom of choice than in the State public houses of Carlisle?

Squadron Leader Cooper

I hope to make an intervention later in the debate.

Mr. Hargreaves

Evidently hon. Members opposite have no knowledge whatever of these matters. Is my hon. Friend aware that in the State-managed inns of Carlisle the public have a choice of three types of stout? They sell Youngers—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

A fairly wide latitude has been allowed in the debate, but I do not think it is in order to discuss that matter.

Mr. Hargreaves

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many beers available in the Carlisle inns from a number of brewing firms, some of them represented on the other side of the House, notably Ind Coope and Allsopp?

Miss Burton

I am very glad to have the very strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). I was sure that I was correct in what I said, but I had not the details which my hon. Friend has kindly given me. I think we can take it that it was the Labour Party who desired to set the people free so that they could choose the type of beer they wanted to drink, and it is the Conservative Party, with the interests of the brewers to consider, who are trying to tie the people down.

Why have the Government brought forward this Motion? It has been suggested that it has been done on the grounds of urgency, but I do not think there is a single hon. Member opposite who would care to go to the country and say that he considers the interests of the brewers to be of such importance that the Conservatives had to bring this Motion forward today and to promote this Bill. It was not in their programme and it is not one of their beliefs, because they say they want to set the people free. Here they want to set only the brewers free.

We are forced to the conclusion that this Bill is being given in return for something. It is certainly not in return for votes to come, because it will lose the party opposite votes. I wonder whether any hon. Member opposite who is a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society—if we have any left—would answer this question. It was estimated in 1930 that the brewing trade spent £2 million per annum in political organisation. Could any hon. Member opposite tell me whether the brewers now spend more than £2 million or less than £2 million per annum on political organisation? I will give way if anybody will answer that question. Apparently not.

Presumably there is some reason behind the decision of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take this type of action, but if they moved among the ordinary people of the country they would find that there is a very strong suspicion—and I am referring to the party in general and not to hon. Members in particular—that until the Tory Party, like the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, are prepared to publish their political funds, it must be concluded that the brewers contribute towards them.

We on this side of the House believe—and if anybody cares to correct me I am willing to give way—that the brewing industry has made very substantial contributions to the Tory Party's funds over a great many years. As we do not get an answer on that point, which it would be very easy to disprove if incorrect, I think we can take it that the point is made. I am very willing to give way to any hon. Member who would like to contradict me.

Mr. Alport

Would the hon. Lady produce her proof? I realise it is an extraordinary thing to expect the elementary rights of British justice from the party opposite.

Miss Burton

I am not aware that it is an elementary right of British justice to refuse to the electorate of this country to publish the accounts of a party showing who are the people who donate to its funds. At the last General Election the party opposite in my constituency were so wealthy they paid political organisers to go out canvassing. We know about that because some members of my own party went to do the job. In fact, they had so much money—the party opposite —that they were not able to spend it under the amount which was allowed to each candidate.

We hear a great deal about the funds of the Labour Party. Well, the Labour Party accounts are published. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with it?"] A very great deal, because I believe it is the reason for this Guillotine Motion, I believe that it is payment by the Tory Party to the brewers, who have given them very large donations. If I were an hon. Member of the party opposite I should be very uncomfortable, and should be more so if the accounts of the party were published.

There are many more who want to speak in the debate, and so I shall conclude now by observing that it seems to me strange that the Royal Commission which reported in 1932 did express the opinion that the Carlisle experiment should be carried to other new towns and that a newspaper like the "Observer," which is not an organ of this side, should strongly disapprove of the Government's Motion of today although, as I say, the Government will carry this Motion, I do not think there has ever been such a flagrant abuse of constitutional procedure as this declaration that the brewers' interests merit a Guillotine Motion.

8.23 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) is always so very charming in her speeches, and always so gracious in the way she gives way to interruptions, that it is a little difficult to criticise her with the severity with which one would want to do so in other circumstances.

Mr. Manuel

Do not try.

Squadron Leader Cooper

However, I am not sure that she was very pleased with the intervention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, I will tell hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman sought to help the hon. Lady, and he stated straight away that the customers in Carlisle had three choices, and the first that he mentioned, as the first choice, was Younger's—that is to say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who belongs to their party. Yet we are the party who are accused of being the party with the brewers' interests. I think the hon. Lady must be fair and bear in mind that there are members of the brewing industry, having substantial interests in the brewing industry. who sit on the Opposition Front Bench.

Miss Burton

I do not wish to take up more time, because I have had my turn, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems incapable of recollecting what people say. I do not care where the brewing interests are. What I am suggesting is that people should have the choice of what they drink, and that that is what the Government are trying to prevent.

Squadron Leader Cooper

The burden of the hon. Lady's speech was that the Tory Party are in the pocket of the brewing industry. I should like to be sure that the Conservative Party received a tenth of the money which the Labour Party receives from the Co-operative societies, and there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who have their election expenses paid by the Co-operative societies, which is a direct charge on the poor people of this country.

Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough)

On a point of order. Are we discussing the question of beer in the new towns, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or are we discussing where the Co-operatives give their funds?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

What we are discussing is the Motion on the Order Paper about the Guillotine.

Squadron Leader Cooper

I am at fault, perhaps, in being led astray, but I think it is a little ungracious in hon. and right hon. Members opposite, when they are prepared to give as hard as they can in the debate today, to be so touchy and squeamish when anybody answers them back. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) allowed his Celtic imagination to run not.

Mr. Manuel

It is too good for the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Squadron Leader Cooper

Not too good at all. I can understand the delight of hon. Members opposite in having this debate today, because it covers up the confusion they must feel in consequence of the report of the O.E.E.C. published yesterday, which shows up the Socialist misdeeds of the last few years.

We have had two speeches, in particular, from the opposite side, one by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and the other by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, both different in their manner of presentation; one very moderate in its tone, the other immoderate. I suppose that in the context of this debate one would say it was a blend of mild and bitter, but if we were to accept the premise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale we should be face to face with a very extraordinary doctrine, which is that when we get to the end of a Parliamentary Session, the Opposition may destroy any Measure which the Government may wish to put forward, and that, because time is short, the Government should have no powers in their hands to get their legislation through. That really is a most impossible proposition for the Opposition to put forward.

Many hon. Gentlemen have been disappointed at the interventions we had in the earlier stages of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. We know that he is in this fight for leadership of the Labour Party, and we know that he is most anxious to get as much publicity as possible.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. Will it be permissible for me, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss the O.E.E.C. Report and the question of the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to his colleagues? Shall I be able to follow those particular points?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is out of order upon this Motion. I was on the point of intervening in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member when he was discussing the O.E.E.C. I thought he had departed from that point and had returned to the Amendment.

Mr. Hale

Would I be right in suggesting that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses the normal courtesy of giving way when he is interrupted, and at the same time abuses his position by making personal attacks upon my right hon. Friend who is not here, and by making other observations which are clearly out of order, it is time we asked that favours should be worn in the buttonholes of hon. Gentlemen opposite so that we may know those who are prepared to obey the rules of order in this House?

Squadron Leader Cooper

It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to become touchy. They must learn to receive what they give in full measure. I complete what I was going to say: that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale really must not abuse his position as Privy Councillor, and abuse the rights—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is certainly not in order to say that the right hon. Gentleman is abusing his position as Privy Councillor.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Squadron Leader Cooper

There can be no point in withdrawing only to give satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because what I have said is on the record. I want to say a few words with regard to—

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when he says that a right hon. Gentleman is abusing his position as Privy Councillor, that is not in order.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Squadron Leader Cooper

If I am instructed by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to withdraw, of course I will do so. I will withdraw any observations I have made, on instructions of the Chair, but I shall certainly not be bullied into withdrawing by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I want to say something in regard to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). We all appreciate his sincerity. He is one among many in this House, but he does not find many sincere supporters on his own side of the Chamber. He makes a case for prohibition. I wonder whether he has considered the extraordinary results of the period of prohibition in the United States of America.

Mr. Follick

We are on a Guillotine Motion.

Squadron Leader Cooper

The hon. Member for Ealing, North was permitted to make observations of this character. I do not see why I should not be allowed to make some observations in reply. What is wanted in this country, as in all countries, is a sense of moderation. There are many people who like a drink and others who like to be teetotallers. Let people have what they want.

I see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his place. I tell him that the reason the Government are forced into this position of bringing forward a Guillotine Motion is the conduct of Her Majesty's Opposition over the past few months in this Parliament. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. If one reads carefully through the debates of our all-night Sittings with the "Bing boys' brigade," and studies the composition of the attendance of Members present on those all-night Sittings, they would find that on nearly every occasion the right hon. Member for South Shields was present on the Front Bench.

Mr. Ede

I have been present on every occasion.

Squadron Leader Cooper

That remark makes my point. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is the standard bearer for the "Bing boys," or is the beater of the big drum, or whether he is there to hear the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) blow his own trumpet. For one reason or another, the right hon. Member for South Shields must accept some responsibility for the conduct of the Opposition during these nights, which have forced this action upon the Government.

I was very sorry indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon. Unquestionably it will go down as one of the worst he has delivered. It was both rude and vulgar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat "rude and vulgar." It proves beyond doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit behind him have no case to put against the Government's Motion. The right hon. Gentleman used abuse and loud talk, with some idea that they were a substitute for argument. If there was one hon. Member opposite who made the case for the Government today, it was the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who, when taxed with obstruction during a speech of one of my hon. Friends, answered, "Why not?" The right hon. Gentleman used some cricketing metaphors during his speech and I am sure he must have felt that the hon. Member for Dudley had bowled a long hop with that one.

I want hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that the British "pub" is an institution which is known and appreciated throughout the world—

Mr. Ede

What?

Squadron Leader Cooper

If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what a British "pub" is like, it explains a great deal of his mental attitude towards our problems.

Mr. Ede

I am well aware of what our "pubs" are like—

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

He was a sergeant-major; he should know.

Mr. Ede

—and I am sorry to see them becoming so systematised under the tied house system.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This debate is indeed going very wide. I do not think the character of the British "pub" is part of the issue under discussion.

Squadron Leader Cooper

I was coming to my conclusion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which was simply this—that there is all the difference in the world between the British "pub" as we know it and the Carlisle experiment, as wide indeed as the difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

In rising to address the House this afternoon, I understand that I am supposed to be brief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If that is so, I want to add one further protest to the one I had intended to make. I want to protest about the use of guillotine methods on a Guillotine Motion. It really is unjust to ask that of some of us who have been in the Committee on this Bill all the time, who have been in this House all the time. I have had no meal since I left home today, and I have come here to make a strong and emphatic protest against both the use of this Guillotine and the Bill upon which it is proposed to be used.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt? I want to join with him in that protest—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must await his opportunity of catching my eye.

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend has given way, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I want to ask him a question. Is he aware that not one Scottish back bencher has spoken in this debate. Not only have we been deprived of the Scottish debate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order, order. Mr. Wilkins.

Mr. Wilkins

I think that interruption merely illustrates the depth of feeling amongst hon. Members on this side of the House. I shall refer to two observations by hon. Members opposite which I want to challenge in a most deliberate way. I refer first to the observations of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) suggesting that our opposition, both to the Bill and to this Guillotine Motion, is a sham opposition.

Some days ago I observed to the Government Whip in the Committee that he should realise that the fight we were putting up was no sham but a real fight. We really believed that it was our duty to resist this Bill in every way, and I am both sad and amazed and dismayed at the attitude of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) this afternoon. I have known for many years his deep interest in the temperance movement of this country. On one occasion I happened to be present, by invitation of certain leading officials of the temperance organisations, when he was there and when the hope was expressed that we in this House who believed in temperance would always fight with all the energy and power at our command any further inroads by the brewing interests of this country upon the lives of our people.

I want therefore to make my most emphatic protest at the proposal for the curtailment of discussion on the Bill, which is of immense importance to millions of people and which affronts and, indeed, shocks the conscience of Nonconformity and the Methodist conscience in particular. I said to the Home Secretary in the Committee last week—I am proud to think that in reflecting their views I had no knowledge whatever that the Methodist Conference then sitting had decided to send a telegram to the Home Secretary about this matter—that we in Nonconformity would take care that every Nonconformist in the country knew what the Government were proposing to do at this time.

The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) quoted me quite fairly with regard to a remark I made in the Committee, when I said: If it were a constructive Measure I could understand the desire of the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends to push it forward. Yet it is simply a means of destroying the legislation of previous Governments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 17th July, 1952; c. 112.] I make no apology whatever for my efforts to secure that the Bill should be considered Clause by Clause, line by line and word by word. Hon. Members opposite cannot complain, because they kept the Bill in cold storage for four months when we could have been giving full and adequate consideration to it.

I should like to say a word or two about the Home Secretary this afternoon in moving the Motion which is before the House. He said, "We must have the Motion, because the Bill is necessary. The Bill must become law this Session because of the requirements for the plans and orderly progress of new towns." Then he said that he was not going into the merits of the Bill. My silent comment was that it had no merits.

The reason why the Home Secretary made that suggestion is because, he said, "We are about to spend large sums of money on the acquisition of public house premises in the new towns." But we are spending huge sums of public money to build the new towns, and in putting thousands and thousands of people into those new towns we are establishing the good will which the brewers seek to exploit. Therefore, it is right that we should not only control by State management public houses in the new towns, but that we should also be enabled to prevent the exploitation, largely by advertisement, of the liquor trade in those towns.

I have often wondered, as I have looked at the hoardings, about the origin of the poster which we now see and which is called "The kinkajou." I believe that we have seen it this afternoon in the example, or in the words, of the Home Secretary where he has clearly shown that he is like the kinkajou in the advertisement—

Mr. D. Jones

He cannot hang upside down.

Mr. Wilkins

—hanging upside down by his tail on the brewers' trunk.

One further objection which we have to this Measure is its unseemly haste. We are told that the Government must get the Bill in order to have the plans and grant the licences for the building of public houses in the new towns. I represent a blitzed city as do some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). We have heard the Home Secretary pleading for an opportunity to give licences for the building of public houses. We are demanding the right of materials we need to rebuild and re-establish the blitzed cities.

I say to hon. Members opposite who are concerned at the opposition we are putting up to this Measure that this is a determined fight. I am not ashamed of the opposition we have put up, and I hope none of my hon. Friends are ashamed. So far as I am concerned, by all legitimate and constitutional means in my power I shall try to prevent this thing ever going on the Statute Book of this country.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport (Colchester) rose—

Hon. Members

Snooper.

Mr. Alport

I fully anticipated that those catch-words from the other side of the House would greet the start of my speech today. All I can say is that I realise the keen sensitiveness of hon. Members opposite in having to face three resolutions from constituents calling attention to the fact that they have lamentably failed to carry out their Parliamentary duties.

I only hope that those of their constituents who propose those motions when their annual party conference comes will not only take notice of the statement I made in the Standing Committee. but also of the "Manchester Guardian," which said that in the debate on colonial affairs there were only six Labour back benchers in the House.

Mr. Awbery

And only four Tories.

Mr. Hale

I am already overloaded, but when I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and refer to the debate on economic affairs and so on, may I also assume the colonial debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already observed that there has been very wide latitude in this debate, but it cannot range over every subject under the sun. The point of this debate is the Guillotine and the Guillotine alone. Arguments directed against the use of the Guillotine, or in favour, are in order, but no other arguments.

Mr. Hale

May I make myself clear? What I was going to say was that I am very anxious to speak about the Guillotine, which I do not think has been mentioned for some time, and I wanted to ask whether it is in order to discuss the colonial debate, the number of people at the Royal Garden Party, and many other matters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Certainly they are all out of order.

Mr. Alport

I introduced those remarks to reply to some of the rather puerile interjections at the beginning of my speech. I wish to turn to a quotation from another newspaper, one which is certainly not a supporter of the party on this side of the House. It is the London "Star," which, in a recent editorial, had some remarks to make in regard to this Bill. The "Star" said: It is said that some Labour Members of Parliament think that their case for nationalising the breweries has been strengthened. It seems clear to me that, behind all this façade of sentiment and emotion to which we have listened in the Committee, and now when discussing this time-table Motion, the real reason is the intention of the party opposite to try to build up more strongly than previously has been the case the proposal to nationalise the breweries and the "pubs." We have listened to angry cries, but there are some keen objective observers of whom the editor or the leader writer of the "Star" is undoubtedly one. I have not the slightest doubt, after all the admiration that has been shown of the system which exists in Carlisle, that it indicates that what hon. Members opposite want to see is the extension of that system throughout the country, and they will use arguments which they are welcome to use so far as we on this side of the House are concerned. The arguments in this debate—

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

On a point of order. Will you be good enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say whether the hon. Member has been in order on any one matter that he has been discussing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not know at the moment at what the hon. Member is directing his argument. If the argument which he is directing has some relevance to the application of the Guillotine, it will be in order, but it must be so applied.

Mr. Alport

I am sure the House realises that these remarks are distasteful to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not like the public to be reminded of the motives which are behind their tactics in this debate. Throughout the whole of this debate and the debate upstairs the question of motives has always been an issue.

It seems to me that one is justified in considering and trying to analyse the tactics of Members on the other side of the House so that the matter can be properly considered. If I may continue with my quotation, the "Star" leader writer says: Certainly the Government's Bill to reverse Labour's decision should be supported. … That comes from a newspaper, not a Conservative newspaper, but a Liberal newspaper, which so far as I know represents—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The merits of the Bill are not in issue. The question at issue is whether the Guillotine should be applied in order to pass the Bill through the House.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)

On a point of order. Can you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the information of the House, say how many times you have to call an hon. Member to order so that he should address himself to the question being debated? Is there any rule?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Alport

I will pass on from that. If I may continue with my quotation from the leading article, it is: In new towns as elsewhere"—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order. I have sat here for the last quarter of an hour and on several occasions I have heard you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, call the hon. Member to order and state that he must not quote and that he must not—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I did not say that the hon. Member must not quote. I said that he must not quote irrelevantly.

Mr. Lewis

Further to that point of order. I was explaining my point of order. You had on several occasions pointed out to the hon. Member that he was not in order in going into the merits or demerits of the Bill, that he must confine his remarks to whether or not there should or should not be the application of the Guillotine, and to the Motion on the Order Paper. I have sat here during the whole time the hon. Member has been speaking, and he has not once put to you or to the House any question whether there should or should not be a Guillotine Motion. How long is he to be allowed to continue?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already given my Ruling; that is quite clear.

Mr. Hale

May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that after you gave your last and third Ruling, the hon. Member said, with insolence and contempt for the Chair, "I will pass from that." There was no acknowledgment of your Ruling, no expression of agreement, no obeying of your Ruling, and the hon. Member continued with the same quotation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Chair must be allowed to look after its own interests.

Mr. Hale

Further to that point of order. When you said that you must look after the interests of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that not—I submit this with great respect—a denial of an hon. Member's right to protect the Chair from indignity when, very often, the Chair has not clearly heard words that have been used? I was calling attention to words which I suspect you had not heard, when the hon. Member contemptuously said, "All right, I will pass on," made no other acknowledgment of your Ruling, and continued with precisely the same quotation.

Mr. Alport

I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the contempt I had was not for you, but for hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Manuel

Further to the point of order. The point my hon. Friend is making is that, after you had drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman to it, he persisted in the same quotation that you have stopped him from reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I drew the attention of the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, to what I said would be relevant to this debate. I think I made myself perfectly clear.

Mr. Alport

Perhaps I should explain to you, Sir, that the whole object of my argument is to prove—at any rate to my satisfaction and I hope to the satisfaction of other hon. Members in this House, because it is an important point—that we do want to carry out the intention set out in this Motion of getting the procedure on this Bill in this House completed at the earliest possible moment. After all, we have been asked on a number of occasions by hon. Members opposite to explain the reason for the hurry, and the justification for taking this action. If I were allowed to elaborate my remarks, I should be in a position to satisfy you, Sir, if not other hon. Members of the House, that there is some relevance in the remarks I have to make on this point. I realise, as do all of us on this side of the House, that hon. Members opposite in this case cannot take what is said to them.

The quotation then goes on—

Mr. Beswick

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The quotation from the "Star" newspaper, which you have on three occasions ruled out of order is now—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have not ruled the quotation out of order. I do not know what the quotation is. All I have ruled out of order is a general discussion which is not in any way related to the Guillotine Motion.

Mr. Alport

The quotation goes on: Yet we have the curious spectacle of those who are always denouncing monopolies and cartels campaigning with doctrinaire passion for a new State monopoly. Why stop them? Why not force on the new towns State butchers, bakers, garages and cinemas? And the inevitable Co-op—is that to be a State Co-op of the future?

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. Can we now have your Ruling as to whether the question of whether or not hon. Members on these benches believe, or do not believe, in monopolies, cartels or any trade restrictions, can be relevant to the matter we are now considering, which is the Amendment to the Guillotine Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)?

Mr. Alport

Further to that point of order. I will explain that we on this side do not believe in monopolies or cartels—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Whatever are the beliefs on either side of the House—and they are very different I have no doubt—about monopolies, that is not the issue of this debate. The issue of this debate is whether, in the circumstances of this particular Bill, this Guillotine Motion should be applied or not.

Mr. Alport

If I may explain, we on this side of the House believe in the objects of this Bill. We are bringing in this Bill to prevent a grave monopoly—

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is not it perfectly obvious that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) has persistently flouted your Ruling and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not yet know what he is going to develop.

Mr. Alport

May I explain, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the reason for the haste over this Bill, the reason why we should get it through in this Session, is to ensure that we overturn a movement towards a monopoly and a cartel in which hon. Members opposite believe, and in which we do not believe. We should do so as quickly as possible, because there will be a great deal of important legislation to overturn in connection with other monopolies and cartels which hon. Members opposite have set up, and from which we shall require to get free during the forthcoming years. I fully understand that, behind their conduct, are their objections to our taking this action. The long filibusters we have seen upstairs, and again on the Floor of the House, constitute an even more sinister problem, and it is one which this House should consider.

At the end of the quotation which I have put before the House, it is stated that it is, after all, possible that the object is to substitute for the existing system a Co-op. monopoly. I wonder how many hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) have declared their interest in this matter? After all, they represent in this House the powerful, all-pervading forces of the Co-operative movement, and we know quite well that the finances of the Co-operative monopoly are at the disposal of individual hon. Members.

Mr. D. Jones rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I find it very difficult to relate that to this Motion.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

With regard to the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it not true—though, as you were not present in the Chamber, you may not be aware of it—that during his speech the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) spoke of conspiracies and vultures and used various other expressions which certainly were not out of order according to the then occupant of the Chair? May not my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) be permitted to develop his argument?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot say anything about that speech; I was not here, and I cannot speak of anything said in that part of the debate. I would plead with all hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember that the issue here is not merely the merits of the Bill or anything of that kind. That is out of order in this discussion. The issue here is that the Government have introduced a Guillotine Motion, which is objected to, and any arguments advanced should be related to that Guillotine Motion in order to show whether that Motion should be approved or not. There cannot be any general argument.

Mr. J. Hudson

The hon. Member has charged me with not declaring an interest in connection with the Bill and the Motion now before the House. I only wish to say that I certainly would have declared an interest if there had been the least likelihood of any part of the proposals concerning the handing over of liquor dealing to the Co-operative movement. There is nothing of that sort involved, and the hon. Gentleman is merely trying to draw a curtain—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

I hope the House will now continue the discussion in order.

Mr. Alport

In this problem, the question is that the opposition, which has been so strong from hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the whole of this Bill in the Committee stage, which has made this Guillotine Motion necessary, and which has, indeed, compelled the Government to take power which would have been—

Mr. A. Lewis

On a point of order. When your predecessor was in the Chair a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Colchester made an accusation against my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. He did, in fact, say that my hon. Friend had been guilty of grave misconduct in not disclosing that he had some interest in the subject-matter of this discussion. While you were out of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North got up and explained that he had no personal interest in the matter whatsoever. Is it not customary, my hon. Friend having made that clear, for the hon. Member making the false accusation to act like a gentleman and withdraw it?

Mr. Alport

There have been a number of accusations made by hon. Members opposite about the interests of hon. Members on this side of the House in this Bill, suggesting that they were in a conspiracy with the brewers.

Mr. Speaker

Even though there have been a certain number of, accusations of interest on both sides of the House, one does not excuse another. What interest did the hon. Member say that the hon. Member for Ealing, North had concealed?

Mr. Alport

I was quoting from an evening paper which drew attention to the fact that there was a possibility that eventually the interests of the Cooperative movement would be used to take over the "pubs" in these new towns My point was—

Mr. Speaker

I have now got the strength of this. That is not a direct pecuniary interest such as would disqualify an hon. Member from voting or sitting on a Committee. Such an interest has to be personal to himself. The fact that he is a member of a movement which has certain views does not constitute a direct pecuniary interest. I do not know what was said; I leave it entirely to the hon. Member for Colchester. If he thinks he has been unjust to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, he will no doubt withdraw what he said in view of what I have indicated as to the rule.

Mr. J. Hudson

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—and I thank you for it—it would now be customary, would it not, for the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw the charge that I had concealed my interest?

Mr. Speaker

We are all Members of this House together.

Mr. Alport

It is very difficult in these circumstances to develop an argument in which I believe very strongly. I believe that many of the allegations made by hon. Members opposite have been preposterous and disgraceful, and, frankly, it is time that they learned to take some of their own medicine. I merely make that point in order to show to somebody like the hon. Member for Ealing, North that he cannot get away with this cant—

Mr. Speaker

"Cant" is an unparliamentary expression. The hon. Member ought to withdraw that.

Mr. Alport

I will certainly withdraw it, but, Mr. Speaker, the whole of this—

Mr. Beswick

On a point of order. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, now that you have been able to follow this debate a little longer, to call upon the hon. Member opposite to withdraw the accusation which he made against my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North to the effect that he had concealed an interest in this matter?

Mr. Alport

In these circumstances, I have made my point and my protest—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are wasting a lot of time about a small point. I am waiting for the hon. Member who is addressing the House to withdraw the imputation that the hon. Member for Ealing, North acted improperly, and I am also waiting for him to withdraw the use of the word "cant," which is one of the bad words in our vocabulary.

Mr. Alport

I have already under your instructions, Mr. Speaker, withdrawn the word "cant," and as far as I am concerned I have, as I am explaining, made my protest against the way in which hon. Members opposite have carried on this debate. I am quite willing in those circumstances, having made that protest. to withdraw any imputation that the hon. Member for Ealing, North may conceive I have made against him.

I suggest that there has been demonstrated today beyond any doubt whatever the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which the whole of this debate has been carried on here and upstairs. It has been shown that the type of debating which has characterised the speeches of so many hon. Members opposite is a negation here, as it is upstairs, of democratic procedure. I hope, as a result of the measures which my right hon. Friend has taken to ensure a time-table for this Bill, that during the remainder of the time at the disposal of the Committee and the House the Bill will be considered on its merits and not in accordance with the prejudices, rumours and false allegations which have marred the procedure up to now.

9.11 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank) rose—

Mr. Hamilton

Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the closing speeches are now to be made and that the debate is thereupon to conclude? If so, as a Scottish back bencher and the only Scottish Member with a new town in his constituency, I wish to object most strongly to this procedure.

Mr. Hale

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. May I call attention to the fact that throughout the debate up to now hon. Members have been called from either side alternately, and on this occasion we see that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has been called upon after a particularly provocative speech from the other side by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) to which no one has been given an opportunity to reply. May I also suggest that there appears to have been a lack of co-ordination in this matter in that so many members of the Standing Committee have not been called upon.

Mr. Speaker

It is customary when a Privy Councillor rises to call him.

Mr. Bing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been here throughout the debate and in every speech from the benches opposite there has been a personal attack on me in relation to something which I have done or said. Is it the idea of the Leader of the House now to get up so as to influence the mind of the House that the time has come to terminate the debate and not to give an opportunity to an hon. Member who has been personally attacked in every speech from the other side to reply to those attacks?

Mr. Crookshank rose—

Mr. Foot

Can you tell the House, Mr. Speaker, whether there have been any conversations between you and the Leader of the House as to the time when the Leader of the House was to rise and as to the time when this discussion should be brought to a close, and, if so, what was the nature of those discussions?

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

It is an unusual question, but I do not mind saying that when I came into the House I had a message stating that the Leader of the House would like to speak next. That is quite customary, and that is all that I have had.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

Does your reply, Mr. Speaker, mean that the right hon. Gentleman is now closing the debate?

Mr. Crookshank

I thought that after the hard hitting which has been going on on both sides it might not be a bad thing briefly to come back to the Motion which we are discussing and to the Amendment, which is the more immediate problem. But I should like to reiterate what the Home Secretary said at the beginning of the debate—that in the view of the Government this is an important Bill which it is necessary to put on the Statute Book as soon as Parliament will permit, and we want to get it through during this Session.

We are fortified in our desire when we recollect that when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading it had a majority of 40–306 to 266 votes—which makes it reasonable to assume that it had more than the average support one might have expected from the nominal Government majority. But it was unfortunate. It had, in fact, to be delayed owing to other business which came along, as the House knows perfectly well, including the very generous allotment of time given to the Finance Bill.

We had always hoped that it was going to be possible to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, not because it was a matter of great constitutional importance, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, but because it was one of the Bills which we thought the House might wish to have debated on the Floor in Committee. But owing to the generous allotment of time to other business, we proposed at the end of June that the Order should be discharged and the Bill should go to Committee upstairs.

Here may I remind everybody present that the Motion was agreed to without a Division at all. It had the unanimous assent of the House of Commons that it should go upstairs, and that decision was taken in the early hours of the morning on 27th June. [An HON. MEMBER: "After four months."] It does not matter if it was after 40 months. At that stage it was agreed to by the House unanimously without a Division. Why not? I will explain why, in my view. It is because the House thought that a month was adequate time for the Bill to he discussed in Committee and to be returned here; and, in point of fact, of course it is quite obvious that it was enough time for that purpose.

What happened was that since then, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, there have been four Sittings of 2½ hours each. Only two Amendments have been dealt with, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) pointed out just now that from calculations he had made, of those 10 hours 5½ or more had been spent on procedural matters and had not touched the substance of the Bill at all. That does not sound like very rapid progress upstairs.

I am reminded of an observation of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when one of these matters was under discussion—I think it was the joint time-table in 1947—when he was speaking from this Box. He said that his experience was that under no Government in modern times had legislation been too swift. If it has never been too swift under any Government in modern times, certainly what went on upstairs in this Standing Committee could not have been described as anything too swift.

In fact, it became quite clear that no progress was being made at all, and while it seems to be a matter of some doubt how far anything which was said in a Standing Committee can he referred to here, I hope that I may be allowed to refer to the Press reports of what happened in the Standing Committee. The Press reports of what happened there show clearly that on the fourth Sitting of that Standing Committee the Bill was not discussed at all. They spent the whole time finding out whether or not they should adjourn, which they eventually did. It seemed, therefore, quite clear that no progress was likely to be made, and that is the reason for this Motion.

I know hon. Members will jeer when I say this, but I say it just the same because it is true. Everyone who sits on this side of the House dislikes this just as much as hon. Members opposite disliked this sort of thing in their own time. Everybody dislikes having to ask the House to take some special means of curtailing its full powers of debate. But when the right hon. Member for South Shields went on to say, as he did this afternoon, that not only is this a constitutional outrage but political trickery and the lowest watermark, he was letting himself go a bit. Perhaps on the word "water" I should pause, remembering the subject of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) called it a conspiracy. This is very extravagant language, and very uncalled for. "Conspiracy" says the hon. Member for Ealing, North. He is certainly one who takes a different view according to which side of the House he is sitting when Measures of this kind come before it. But what was he saying in 1948, on a similar Motion. He was saying: Hon. Members must realise that in a reasonable democratic body like this House of Commons we must arrange and time our debates; we must accept loss of opportunity"— he did not have to lose any opportunity today. He certainly took it, in full measure— … the best of us and the worst of us"— and I think he is one of the best of us, except for his fatal predeliction, milk— … in order to obtain for Parliament an opportunity for democratic discussion which the people expect of us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1470–1.] That is exactly the object of this Motion, and I am glad to have his assent before bringing it in. We are not laying down the actual detail of the time-table. That is left to the Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee, under Standing Orders. Therefore, I do not know how much longer they will require or how many more Sittings there will be. All we are seeking to do is to see that the Bill is reported back to the House on or before 31st July. That seems to be a reasonable period to allow for all the Amendments to be dealt with.

Without discussing the merits of this Bill, it is one which, on the face of it, contains one great principle—a principle which the House accepted by a majority of 40 on Second Reading. After that there are three or four Clauses introducing the necessary machinery. As was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend, there are three other Clauses of so normal and unexceptionable a nature that as yet, in spite of the vast mass of Amendments put down altogether, no Amendments have been put down in respect of them.

It will be for the Business Sub-Committee to decide how much time they want between now and 31st July. The right hon. Member for South Shields said that they would have preferred a voluntary time-table instead of a Motion of this kind. So would the Government. I hope there is no question about that. There are many examples of understandings and mutual arrangements, and the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that we would have preferred that if it had been possible, but it was not to be.

Mr. Ede

If the Government would have liked that, why was it not suggested?

Mr. Crookshank

I merely say that the right hon. Gentleman knows that we would have liked it. If he does not know it is not my fault. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why was not it suggested?"] If I am going to be asked that question again I shall ask somebody else to reply. I merely say that the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that we would have liked it, but it was not to be.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Why did not the Government try?

Mr. Crookshank

I must not be tempted too far. There are certain things which, even across the Floor of this House, I prefer not to reveal. I merely say that the right hon. Gentleman knows it quite well, not only as a general matter of principle. Nobody wants this sort of time-table. Certainly this Government did not want this one if it could possibly have been avoided. To say that we do not want adequate discussion is absurd. There have already been four Sittings of the Committee and there is plenty of time. If the objection is that we are not giving enough time, I say that we are. If it is that we are fixing a date—31st July—I do not think that there is anything wrong with that, so long as we have to have a timetable.

As the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) explained when giving evidence on behalf of his Government before the Select Committee: The House ought to be able to say"— speaking to a Committee— 'You must report within that time.' I do not think that anyone can object to our putting down a date at which we hope the Committee will have finished its business, or at any rate putting a duty on the Chairman to report it by that date.

The right hon. Gentleman was complaining that because we had had to bring in this Motion today we had destroyed the chances of the Scottish transport debate. We have done nothing of the sort. He said it had been knocked out of its priority. If it were so important, it could have been taken tomorrow, and what has been put down for tomorrow could have been taken on the next Supply Day.

It is absolute nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to talk like that. If a thing has very highest priority, all that means in common sense—and everybody knows what the word "priority" means—is that it is what the Opposition want to debate next; and tomorrow is their next day. They chose to put something else down. The right hon. Gentleman should not blame me for their not giving priority to their Scottish business. The blame lies alongside him, and that is where the complaint should be directed—not to me. There is still the Supply Day left.

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) complained that we ought not to take controversial legislation because we have only a small majority.

Mr. Hamilton

The right hon. Gentleman has no majority.

Mr. Crookshank

Well, we had a majority of 40 for the Second Reading of the Bill, and all through the Session we have had adequate majorities, including one of about 50 this afternoon.

Mr. Bevan rose—

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spoke for a long time, and all I am saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Cannot I finish my sentence? Surely I am allowed that privilege even by Ebbw Vale. All I am saying is that for practical purposes the majority which the Government have hitherto enjoyed in the House has been an effective majority, and so long as the Government can count on an effective majority they see no reason to accept the theory that they should sit still and do nothing at all.

Mr. Bevan

I did not say that the Government ought not to introduce controversial legislation. I said no such thing. As usual, the right hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. What I said was that if they had to introduce controversial legislation, it should be legislation which they considered absolutely essential in the interests of the nation as a whole and in the circumstances, and not legislation of this minor character.

Mr. Crookshank

That is begging the whole question, because we do consider this legislation in the interests of the majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— for the very simple reason that we do not hold with the nationalisation of public houses. We think that when there is a danger, as a result of previous legislation, of that happening in one quarter, then in the general national interest we should see that it does not occur. I was perfectly well aware that I had the right hon. Gentleman's words right, because this was not something reported to me but something which I wrote down myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Repeat it."] There is a rule against repetition. I have heard a good deal already this afternoon, and I do not think anybody wants me to go back and repeat the first part of my speech.

I say that we are entitled to have our Measures dealt with according to Parliamentary usage and subject to the usual Parliamentary checks, and we are finding a means in this Motion of doing that, because not only does it remain with the Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide on the Division of the time in Committee, but when the Bill comes back to the House we are allowing a whole day for the Report stage and half-a-day for the Third Reading, which is a very generous provision for a Bill of this nature.

I am not without hope that when the Motion has been put in the Journals of the House, after tonight's Division, and when the Sub-Committee meets, and when the Standing Committee settles down, as well it may, we shall find that the storm is over and that the situation will be the same as it was with the last time-table. On that occasion we had a great storm here, but when we went to discuss that Bill under the time-table a most remarkable thing happened, although I do not think it can happen in the same way in the Standing Committee.

But on that occasion I had the statistics worked out, and I found that something like 95 per cent. of the Members who took an enormous number of columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT while the debate was open did not share in the discussions at all once the Bill got to Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gag."] No. It was not a question of gagging. It was that other Members took part then, not those who had been apparently more interested in the Bill. Something of the sort may arise upstairs. It was very curious how those hon. Members did appear to become Trappists all of a sudden.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

On a point of order. Is it correct for the right hon. Gentleman to make what appears to be an imputation upon the Chairman of the Committee—that he selected specific Members of the Committee—and then to draw the conclusion from that, that other Members of the Committee did not endeavour to catch his eye?

Mr. Speaker

I heard no such imputation.

Mr. Crookshank

I do not suppose other hon. Members were within the precincts at that time. I do not know. The later we sit, the more disappear.

Now, we have, in fact, given under this Motion very generous time for the remaining stages of this Bill, and I say we feel we must make sure, so far as it is in our power to do, that the Measures we as a Government consider are necessary are passed. On this occasion it does involve the regrettable step of having a time-table. If I am asked, "Do you think the time-table necessary in the

present circumstances?" I regretfully have to say, "Yes, I do think so." If I am asked, "Is this time-table adequate in the circumstances?" I say, "Yes, most certainly"; and because of that I commend it to the House.

Several Hon. Members rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. 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 House divided: Ayes, 291 Noes, 273.

Division No. 212.]	AYES	[930 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Crouch, R. F.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Alport, C. J. M.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hirst, Geoffrey
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Hollis, M. C.
Arbuthnot, John	Davidson, Viscountess	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	De la Bère, Sir Rupert	Hope, Lord John
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Deedes, W. F.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Digby, S. Wingfield	Horobin, I. M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Baker, P. A. D.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Donner, P. W.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Baldwin, A. E.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Banks, Col. C.	Drayson, G. B.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Barber, Anthony	Drewe, C.	Hurd, A. R.
Barlow, Sir John	Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Baxter, A. B.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Duthie, W. S.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Erroll, F. J.	Jennings, R.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Finlay, Graeme	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Fisher, Nigel	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Kaberry, D.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Fort, R.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Birch, Nigel	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Bishop, F. P.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lambert, Hon. G.
Black, C. W.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lambton, Viscount
Boothby, R. J. G	Gage, C. H.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Boyd Carpenter, J. A.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Braine, B. R.	Gammans, L. D.	Leather, E. H. C.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Godber, J. B.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lindsay, Martin
Brooman-White, R. C.	Gough, C. F. H.	Linstead, H. N.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Gower, H. R.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bullard, D. G.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Low, A. R. W.
Burden, F. F. A.	Harden, J. R. E.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Butcher, H. W.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Cary, Sir Robert	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Channon, H.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	McAdden, S. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	McCallum, Major D.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Cole, Norman	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Colegate, W. A.	Hay, John	McKibbin, A. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Heald, Sir Lionel	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heath, Edward	Maclean, Fitzroy
Cranborne, Viscount	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Higgs, J. M. C.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Pitman, I. J.	Storey, S.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Powell, J. Enoch	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Summers, G. S.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Sutcliffe, H.
Markham, Major S. F.	Profumo, J. D.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Raikes, H. V.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Rayner, Brig. R.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Redmayne, M.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Maude, Angus	Remnant, Hon. P.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Maudling, R.	Renton, D. L. M.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Mellor, Sir John	Robson-Brown, W.	Tilney, John
Molson, A. H. E.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Roper, Sir Harold	Turner, H. F. L.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Turton, R. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Russell, R. S.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Vane, W. M. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Nicholls Harmar	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Vosper, D. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Nicolson Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Scott, R. Donald	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Shepherd, William	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Nutting, Anthony	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Oakshott, H. D.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Odey, G. W.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Wellwood, W.
Ormsb[...]-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Orr-Ewing Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Soames, Capt. C.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L (Weston-super-Mare)	Spearman, A. C. M.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Osborne, C.	Speir, R. M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Partridge, E.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Wills, G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Perkins, W. R. D.	Stanley, Capt. Hon, Richard	Wood, Hon. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Stevens, G. P.
Payton, J. W. W.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Mr. Studholme and Major Conant
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Cocks, F. S.	Freeman, John (Watford)
Adams, Richard	Coldrick W.	Gibson, C. W.
Albu, A. H.	Collick, P. H.	Gooch, E. G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cove, W. G.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Craddock, George (Bradford. S.)	Grey, C. F.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Crosland, C. A. R.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Awbery, S. S.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Daines, P.	Grimond, J.
Baird, J.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hale Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Balfour, A.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Hamilton, W. W.
Bence, C. R.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hannan, W.
		Hardy, E. A.
Benn, Wedgwood	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hargreaves, A.
Benson, G.	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Beswick, F.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hastings, S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Deer, G.	Hayman, F. H.
Bing, G. H. C.	Delargy, H. J.	Healey, Denis (Leeds S. E.)
Blackburn, F.	Dodds. N. N.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Blenkinsop, A.	Donnelly, D. L.	Herbison, Miss M.
Blyton, W. R.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hobson, C. R.
Bowden, H. W.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Holman, P.
Bowen, E. R.	Edelman, M.	Holt, A. F.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Houghton, Douglas
Brockway, A. F.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Hoy, J. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Burke, W. A.	Ewart, R.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Fernyhough, E.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)	Field, W. J.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Callaghan L. J.	Fienburgh, W.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Carmichael, J.	Finch, H. J.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Janner, B.
Champion, A. J.	Follick, M.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Chapman, W. D.	Foot, M. M.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Clunie, J.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Oswald, T.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Padley, W. E.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Swingler, S. T.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Sylvester, G. O.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Pannell, Charles	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Pargiter, G. A.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Parker, J.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Keenan, W.	Paton, J.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Kenyon, C.	Peart, T. F.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
King, Dr. H. M.	Poole, C. C.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Kinley, J.	Popplewell, E.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Porter, G.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Thurtle, Ernest
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Timmons, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Proctor, W. T.	Tomney, F.
Lewis, Arthur	Pryde, D. J.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Lindgren, G. S.	Pursey, Cmdr, H.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Rankin, John	Usborne, H. G.
Logan, D. G.	Reeves, J.	Viant, S. P.
MacColl, J. E.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Wade, D. W.
McGhee, H. G.	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Wallace, H. W.
McInnes, J.	Rhodes, H.	Watkins, T. E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Richards, R.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
McLeavy, F.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Weitzman, D.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Mainwaring, W. H.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	West, D. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Royle, C.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Manuel, A. C.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mayhew, C. P.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Wigg, George
Mellish, R. J.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Wilkins, W. A.
Messer, F.	Short, E. W.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Mikardo, Ian	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Williams, David (Neath)
Mitchison, G. R.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Monslow, W.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Moody, A. S.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Slater, J.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Morley, R.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith S.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewlsham, S.)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mort, D. L.	Snow, J. W.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Moyle, A.	Sorensen, R. W.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Murray. J. D.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Nally, W.	Sparks, J. A.	Wyatt, W. L.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Steele, T.	Yates, V. F.
O'Brien, T.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Oliver, G. H.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.
Orbach M.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to 'and' in line 3, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 274.

Division No. 213.]	AYES	[9.42 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Cary, Sir Robert
Alport, C. J. M.	Bennett, William (Woodside)	Channon, H.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Birch, Nigel	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Bishop, F. P.	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Arbuthnot, John	Black, C. W.	Cole, Norman
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Boothby, R. J. G.	Colegate, W. A.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Braine, B. R.	Cooper-Key, E. M.
Baker, P. A. D.	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Cranborne, Viscount
Baldwin, A. E.	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Banks, Col. C.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Barber, Anthony	Brooman-White, R. C.	Crouch, R. F.
Barlow, Sir John	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Baxter, A. B.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Bullard, D. G.	Cuthbert, W. N.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Bullock, Capt. M.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Davidson, Viscountess
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Burden, F. F. A.	De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Butcher, H. W.	Deedes, W. F.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Kaberry, D.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Keeling, Sir Edward	Profumo, J. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Raikes, H. V.
Donner, P. W.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Lambton, Viscount	Redmayne, M.
Drayson, G. B.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Drewe, G.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Renton, D. L. M.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Leather, E. H. C.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Duthie, W. S.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Robson-Brown, W.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Roper, Sir Harold
Erroll, F. J.	Lindsay, Martin	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Finlay, Graeme	Linstead, H. N.	Russell, R. S.
Fisher, Nigel	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fort, R.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Foster, John	Low, A. R. W.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Scott, R. Donald
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Shepherd, William
Gage, C. H.	McAdden, S. J.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	McCallum, Major D.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	McCorquodale Rt. Hon. M. S.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Gammans, L. D.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
George, Rt, Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	McKibbin, A. J.	Soames, Capt. C.
Godber, J. B.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Speir, R. M.
Gough, C. F. H.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gower, H. R.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Stevens, G. P.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Harden, J. R. E.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Markham, Major S. F.	Storey, S.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Studholme, H. G.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Summers, G. S.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maude, Angus	Sutcliffe, H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Maudling, R.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hay, John	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.	Mellor, Sir John	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Heald, Sir Lionel	Molson, A. H. E.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Heath, Edward	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Higgs. J. M. C.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hilt, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Tilney, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nicholls, Harmar	Turner, H. F. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Turton, R. H.
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hollis, M. C.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Vane, W. M. F.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hope, Lord John	Nugent, G. R. H.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Nutting, Anthony	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Horobin, I. M.	Odey, G. W.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Osborne, C.	Wellwood, W.
Hurd, A. R.	Partridge, E.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Payton, J. W. W.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wills, G.
Jennings, R.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Pitman, I. J.	Wood, Hon. R.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Powell, J. Enoch
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Vosper and Mr. Oakshott
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Bence, C. R.
Adams, Richard	Awbery, S. S.	Benn, Wedgwood
Albu, A. H.	Bacon, Miss Alice	Benson, G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Baird, J.	Beswick, F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Balfour, A.	Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Bing, G. H. C.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Blackburn, F.

Blenkinsop, A.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Pryde, D. J.
Blyton, W. R.	Hobson, C. R.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Holman, P.	Rankin, John
Bowden. H. W.	Holt, A. F.	Reeves, J.
Bowen, E. R.	Houghton, Douglas	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hoy, J. H.	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Brockway, A. F.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Rhodes, H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Richards, R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Burke, W. A.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Royle, C.
Callaghan, L. J.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Carmichael, J.	Janner, B.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Champion, A. J.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.
Chapman, W. D.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Short, E. W.
Clunie, J.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Cocks, F. S.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Coldrick, W.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Collick, P. H.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Slater, J.
Cove, W. G.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Crosland, C. A. R.	Keenan, W.	Snow, J. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Kenyon, C.	Sorensen, R. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Daines, P.	King, Dr. H. M.	Sparks, J. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Kinley, J.	Steele, T.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lewis, Arthur	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Lindgren, G. S.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Swingler, S. T.
Deer, G.	Logan, D. G.	Sylvester, G. O.
Delargy, H. J.	MacColl, J. E.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dodds, N. N.	McGhee, H. G.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Donnelly, D. L.	McInnes, J.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Driberg, T. E. N.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	McLeavy F.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edelman, M.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Timmons, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Manuel, A. C.	Tomney, F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mayhew, C. P.	Thomson, George (Dundee. E.)
Ewart, R.	Mellish, R. J.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
	Messer, F.	Usborne, H. C.
Fernyhough, E.	Mikardo, Ian	Viant, S. P.
Field, W. J.	Mitchison, G. R.	Wade. D. W.
Fienburgh, W.	Monslow, W.	Wallace, H. W.
Finch, H. J.	Moody, A. S.	Watkins, T. E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Follick, M.	Morley, R.	Weitzman, D.
Foot, M. M.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mort, D. L.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Freeman, John (Watford)	Moyle, A.	West, D. G.
Gibson, C. W.	Murray, J. D.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Gooch, E. G.	Nally, W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	O'Brien, T.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Oldfield, W. H.	Wigg, George
Grey, C. F.	Oliver, G. H.	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Orbach, M.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Oswald, T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Padley, W. E.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Grimond, J.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Pannell, Charles	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Pargiter, G. A.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hamilton, W. W.	Parker, J.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hannan, W.	Paton, J.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Hardy, E. A.	Peart, T. F.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Hargreaves, A.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Poole, C. C.	Wyatt, W. L.
Hastings, S.	Popplewell, E.	Yates, V. F.
Hayman, F. H.	Porter, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes
Herbison, Miss M.	Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Speaker

Of the Amendments which follow, I have selected those which seek to exclude from the operation of the Allocation of Time Order the Report stage and Third Reading. There are a large number of these, and I shall call the first one, in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and other hon. Members, in line 3, to leave out from "Committee," to "and" in line 4. I put the Question on the previous Amendment in the form I did so as to save this Amendment. If the Amendment is carried, I shall call the consequential ones.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "Committee," to "and," in line 4.

The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple—to exclude the Report stage from the Guillotine procedure. Let me say at the outset that I do this with the interests of Scotland primarily though not exclusively in mind. I should like to call the attention of the House—I hope that this will not be out of order—to the constitution of Standing Committee C. I am in no sense criticising the Committee of Selection. I merely point out as a fact that the constitution of Standing Committee C, which has been considering this Bill, is such that there is no Tory M.P. from Scotland on the Committee.

The nearest approach we get is the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is a National Liberal Unionist, and it is rather significant that in the 10 hours which we have spent in Committee upstairs on this Bill he has not opened his mouth. Indeed, there has not been a word of opinion expressed on behalf of Scotland on the Government side of the Committee. So far as our side is concerned, I have sat for those 10 hours and have sat throughout today's proceedings, and my total contribution to all that has been about 10 minutes.

Ample opportunity should be given on Report stage, particularly to the Scottish Members on the Government side of the House, to put down Amendments. They are being prohibited from doing so in Standing Committee by the very constitution of the Committee. I express strongly the opinion that in Scotland today there is a tremendous volume of opinion against the measure being pro- posed in this Bill. I believe that there are Scottish Members on the Government side of the House who would share that opinion.

Certainly the corporations of the two new towns in Scotland object to the contents of this Bill. I am one of the two Scottish Members in whose constituency there is a new town, and I have gone to great pains to get the considered opinions of the corporations on all the details of this Bill. I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House who come from Scotland wish, as I do, to put down on Report stage Amendments which they cannot do during the present stage if they are not Members of Standing Committee C. An opportunity for them to do so will be provided if the Government give adequate time to the Report stage on the Floor of the House.

At present the proposal is to give a full day to the Report stage, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that that is adequate time; but his interpretation of adequate time is not necessarily ours. In view of the fact that Scottish hon. Members have been largely precluded from the discussions on this Bill because of the constitution of Standing Committee C, and, by the selection of the Chair—although I am not critical at all of that—precluded from the debate today, I hope that the Home Secretary will give very careful consideration to this Amendment and let us at least have full and adequate discussion on the Report stage.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Even leaving aside the important issue of Scotland, I feel that there are certain other matters which ought to be explored by the House, and I hope that hon. Members will not feel that I am detaining them unnecessarily if I deal with one or two of those matters.

First, let me deal with the argument which I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department might put up. He might say, "Supposing we give two or three days, as we ought, to a Bill of this nature—in view of the circumstances in which it has been brought in and in view of the surrounding circumstances—so that we can explain away one or two of the mysterious things about it. But we cannot do that," the right hon. and learned Gentleman might continue, "because this Measure is so urgent."

If anything will go down in history, I think it will be the attitude of the Lord Privy Seal. That right hon. Gentleman was pressing as a most urgent matter the giving this year of another quarter of a million pounds to the brewers, when he could not find time to discuss the cutting off of a few shillings a week from the poorest section of the community. Those are the types of priorities we are asking the House to reject.

If, in fact, the giving two or three days more for the Committee or Report stage resulted in the Bill not being properly considered in another place, what does that matter? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to deal with the Constitution, he regards the other place as such a rubber stamp and is prepared to give them such a short time that he could well spare a day or so off their time for the consideration of this Bill.

What are the matters we can discuss here? Earlier I think there was some degree of criticism—which I certainly did not share—or at any rate oblique criticism of the Committee of Selection. It was suggested that the President of the Band of Hope, who was a Member of the Committee, was replaced by the Chairman of Fremlins Brewery. But it is the duty of the Committee of Selection—and I am glad of this opportunity to come to the defence of the Committee of Selection—to choose people who are really representative to help to get Government Measures through, and to see that the Government side is properly represented.

The Government side could not have been properly represented upstairs unless they had had a leading Member of the Brewers' Society Parliamentary Committee on Standing Committee C. It was a perfectly proper appointment and, of course, any self-respecting President of the Band of Hope would be only too pleased, in the interests of party, to give way for that purpose. But naturally, the exclusion of all the temperance interests, proper as it was, from the other side of the Committee, resulted in next to nobody from the other side who is on the Standing Committee C ever making a speech at all—with the exception of one interrup- tion, a valuable contribution, from the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe).

Under those circumstances there must, of course, be a great number of other hon. Members in the House who wish to take part in the consideration of the Bill. After all, temperance issues, the giving of decent public houses, is not only the concern of hon. Members on this side of the House. The question of adequate brewery profits interests hon. Members opposite much more. Indeed, we had remarkable proof of it.

If there is one argument in favour of this Amendment it was that given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. What was the Measure from which no Conservative Member exempted himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that, on the Finance Bill, on important matters of taxation, their majority dropped to five or six, but, when it came to a question of something more for the brewers, they were all there. It was the one occasion on which they had a really bumper majority.

If this is a matter so important as to bring hon. Members opposite from their businesses and from other occupations in a way in which the Finance Bill could not draw them, in a way that no other Measure for social amelioration which has been proposed in this House—and not many have—could draw them, then, surely, we ought to give a little more time to it? But we really ought to give more time for discussing what exactly are the relations between the party opposite and the people who have so much welcomed this Bill.

It is the contention on this side of the House—and I am not arguing it—that this Bill is a brewers' ramp, and, in the course of the discussion, the hon. and learned Member for Hove said it was quite all right, for they had a committee and anybody could see who was on that committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman persisted that the names were all in the "Brewers' Almanac." The "Brewers' Almanac" is the most impertinent document ever issued. They have seen fit to include your name, Mr. Speaker, and the names of two Ministers of the Crown as members of the committee, without even taking the trouble to make any correction whatever. There it is. They have put down, as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for Overseas Trade, and, of course, we must not forget the important position of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant).

Of course, all this is incorrect and wrong, but what impudence of the Brewers' Society to see fit to bring the House of Commons into disrepute in this sort of way. This is the current issue of the "Brewers' Almanac." This is the thing they have put out, and this House ought to take a little more time to repudiate it.

Mr. Hale

Will my hon. and learned Friend forgive me? I am glad that he says it is wrong, because it is obviously wrong. He will no doubt remember that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) assured the House that there was no other hon. Member on this Committee except the hon. Member for Wokingham.

Mr. Bing

That may well be so now, but that is all the more reason why this sort of thing should be corrected.

What we really want to pursue in some detail and at some length on Report stage is exactly how this Bill came to be introduced at all, and we really ought to have more time so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can learn a little more about it. He is proposing to hand back to their private owners some 200 public houses in the hew towns, and he says that he is doing this because it costs the State so much. When he was asked what it cost the State, he said he had made no inquiries whatever. All he relied upon was something which he heard that the late Government had said to the effect that this money was to be paid over.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not even give the names. Section 51 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act provides that a register shall be kept of the owners of public houses, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to give the names of the owners of each public house in the new towns. He was not prepared to apply to the licensing justices in order to discover from them who were the owners.

How convenient, because it may well have turned out that, in Pitsea, about which we actually put down a Question, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to answer, the hon. Member for Wokingham turned out to be a director of the firm concerned. I think that in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, who, I am sorry to see is not here, it should be said that he is one of those directors who is not very clear about what he directs. I am quite sure that when before casting his vote in Committee upstairs he said he had no such interest, he thoroughly believed it. He did not know what were the interests of the business in which he was concerned.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is certainly travelling very wide of the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Bing

I may be travelling wide of the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I am keeping myself in order. It is a little difficult because I feel rather indignant that when one sits throughout a debate and hears oneself attacked in respect of one's Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, making use of the privilege which you, Mr. Speaker, always accord him, should get up out of turn and make an extra speech and then say, "That is all right" we are on such a narrow issue that no one can answer it."

I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, with your good will and assistance, to steer my way delicately through this much narrower Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. and learned Gentleman has been attacked in the course of the debate and has not had an opportunity to reply, I have no doubt that his ingenuity will enable him to keep within order in replying to such attacks, and I should certainly regard that with sympathy.

Mr. Bing

It is said that we ought to pass this Motion because there has been a lot of time wasting—not, of course, on the Report stage because we have not yet reached that—in Committee. It was on that point that the particular attack on myself was made. The attack was somewhat illogical. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) suggested that one of the reasons why we should pass this Motion was because hon. Members attended so little to their duties, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) thought that the reason why we should pass it was because everybody spoke so much. But, after all, there is a lot of talk about on these matters, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was never able in the Committee upstairs to reply to the debate, it was very often necessary to go on in order to deal with the point under discussion.

But the really vital statistic was given to us by the hon. and learned Member for Hove who said that, as a matter of fact, only 45 per cent. of the time was spent in discussing the Amendments and 55 per cent. in discussing procedural matters. What were the procedural matters which we were called upon to discuss? They were that we should sit longer hours. The matter about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman waxed so eloquent was in resisting a proposal which I saw fit to move that we should sit at 3.30. His only argument against the proposal was that it was better not to split the day.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you take the view that if hon. Members wish to speak they should be here all the time. Sometimes even when they are they do not have the good fortune to be called, but they should be here all the time if they have any hope of being called at all. Therefore, it would have been quite wrong for us to sit part of a day had it been possible for us to take part in the colonial debate. That was the first argument.

The second was the gross discourtesy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He told us that he had an experience which I think was probably only paralleled by that of Saul on the road to Damascus. He had a lightning conversion. He left the Committee under the impression that we should sit two and a half hours in the evening and that everything would be all right. But by the time he reached the ground floor he was convinced that it was essential to move the Guillotine Motion, and he was able to get the thing arranged in that short space of time.

Now was that really so? Was it really the speeches made by myself and some of my hon. Friends that persuaded the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do that, or is not the whole reason for this haste that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to face some of the Amendments? There is a matter which ought to be discussed, and I hope it will be discussed if we can persuade the House—as I think we shall—to give rather longer time for consideration of the Bill on Report stage.

Some of the Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman are the result of some telepathic communication which he has had with the Brewers' Society. What took place was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to assure the Committee that he had no connection whatsoever with the Brewers' Society—he had not spoken to them, he had not discussed with them at all. There just happened to be a group of Amendments on the Order Paper in his name.

Since then I have been privileged, thanks to the courtesy of the Minister of Food, to obtain a copy of the "Brewing Trade Review" which contains a report of the Parliamentary committee of the Brewers' Society to which I made reference earlier. The report describes the process of telepathy as seen from the brewers' angle. Colonel Whitbread reported on a meeting held that morning. This Bill had received Second Reading and now awaited the Committee stage in the House of Commons. It had been noted that amendments tabled by the Home Secretary appeared to cover various respects in which the Committee had felt that the Bill called for adjustment, with the exception of the need for provision to enable temporary premises to be licensed in new towns. This latter point was covered by a new clause which had been tabled by a private Member, and the Committee"— that is the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society, not to be confused with the Committee upstairs—the confusion is very natural— hoped that the Home Secretary might find it possible to accept that clause. We may well be in difficulties upstairs. Suppose the Guillotine falls. As this Clause is in the name of a Private Member, under the Motion now before the House it will not be considered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to consider, if he is not going to do his duty to democracy, at least doing his duty to the brewers. His party owe them a great deal and there ought to be a reasonable arrangement between both sides of the House so that at least their Amendment can be discussed.

How do we know that this important Amendment dealt with by that committee will ever be reached? It might be shut out altogether. If that happened the whole purpose of this Bill would be frustrated because, whatever the Home Secretary thinks, a careful examination of the "Brewing Trade Review" reveals the exact nature of this Measure which the brewers hope to see introduced.

That is one of the reasons why we should be a little careful to give a little time on the Floor of the House to consider just what are the reasons why we should be persuaded to approve a Measure of this sort. We ought not to give just a day to consider a Measure introduced in the interests of a vested interest. Just because the Prime Minister described the Conservative Party as in the grip of the brewers it has been fashionable in the Conservative Party not to believe it.

They always take the view that everything the Prime Minister says about the future is true and that everything he has said about the past is untrue; and that it having been said by the Prime Minister in the past, it must be for that reason untrue. I do not think that, good as that rule may be in regard to past utterances of the Prime Minister, we ought to stick too hard and fast by it and, merely because the Prime Minister has said it in the past, just to assume that it is quite untrue. There may well be something in it.

A little time ago we had an opportunity of discussing the funds of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party, and we had occasion to point out—it was not contradicted by anybody—that the Brewers' Society were the largest contributors to Aims of Industry, and it turned out in Luton that Aims of Industry shared the same office as the Conservative Party.

Nobody, of course—I say this with all sincerity—accuses the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary of any insincerity in this matter at all. That is the attack which he always makes on his opponents. He was good enough to attribute to me, just before he moved the Closure in the Committee upstairs.

what I think he called synthetic annoyance.

We appreciate, on the other hand, that his anxiety for this Bill springs from a genuine belief that he is carrying out the purposes of freedom, and that he can somehow or other restrict beer drinking in a new town to one brewer he will have performed some remarkable service to the community. That, of course, is the reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman was put in charge of the Bill. He just played the old tune on the piano upstairs, but it was down here that the real work was done by his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

With a Bill which has had this history, ought we to part with it with one day only on Report stage? Why could it not have been sent up to the Committee long ago? We have had no explanation of this, other than that the right hon. Gentleman miscalculated. He thought that he would have plenty of time. But when did he cease to think that he would have plenty of time? Nobody believed that the Lord Privy Seal would have plenty of time.

I want to make an apology. I was inadvertently a little behind with some of the changes that the Prime Minister has very prudently made in his Administration, and I referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies as a member of the Brewers' Society Parliamentary committee. Of course, anybody who knows the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate that I meant the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, the present Minister of Transport. I am very sorry if it is thought that it is an imputation to suggest that anyone has served on the Parliamentary committee of the Brewers' Society, and I did not for one moment intend any imputation.

All I am complaining about, and the thing that ought to be investigated by the House, is not that people joined these bodies; it is very proper if people's interests lie in that direction that they should band themselves together, as the committee explain is their duty, to press their point of view. The only thing that is necessary is that they should make it clear that they are so doing.

The matter which I suggest should be investigated is how this Bill came to be drafted in such a way that it agreed with what the brewers wanted, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put down all the Amendments that the Parliamentary committee wanted, and yet he never had any consultation with them. How did it come about that they wanted it?

I apologise sincerely if it is thought by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that there was any imputation against him in the suggestion that he belonged to that committee. I do not think that there is any imputation on anybody. But we must be quite clear what are the functions of this committee in relation to this Parliament.

I was dealing with the question of why we had such a short time for the consideration of this Bill. If we were to have longer in Committee upstairs it might be proper to have a shorter time for the Report stage, but if we are to truncate the proceedings in Committee we need a much longer period for consideration on the Floor of the House. There is the advantage that hon. Members can only speak once, so that any attacks made on my hon. Friends for speaking more than once on this particular matter would fall to the ground.

Why should we have a longer time? Because the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal obviously intended that we should. When he sent the Bill upstairs to Committee he was telling us that we were going to pass the Transport Bill during this Session. If we were going to pass that Bill during this Session we should have had a good number of months to discuss this matter in Standing Committee upstairs; but we have not had that. What we have to do is to try to see that we have enough time to discuss what are the really important issues in regard to this matter.

The first question is why, at this time, we should make a present to the brewers of £250,000 a year when, to save £30,000, we have to close museums? That is what is being done. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this is saving £1 million. What he is failing to do is to make an investment of £1 million which would have brought him in a profit of 25 per cent.

Secondly, why has he seen fit to alter the licensing arrangements in regard to new towns so that there can be a "carve up" by the brewers? He is not proposing to restore the ordinary licensing system but to have quite a different scheme, which provides for the brewers dividing up territories.

Thirdly, if he is so keen—as are some of his hon. Friends—on the question of monopolies, why is there not to be an opportunity of discussing the type of monopoly which, having got the advantage of the licence, insists on pushing up prices against the public. I should like to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example which I gave in the Committee upstairs. Every time the duty on beer has gone up the price of cider has gone up.

I quoted an extract from the "Morning Advertiser" which showed that at this very moment, in Maidstone, the brewers are placing royalties on cider in order to prevent it from being sold. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is smiling. Is this what he wants in the new towns? There are agricultural interests to be considered, in connection with the growing of cider apples. I should have thought that this was something which should be discussed.

We might also discuss some of the evils of the tied house system. We have heard a certain amount about the utiliser. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to introduce it into the new towns?

Mr. Speaker

I have given the hon. and learned Member a good deal of latitude because I understood from him that he had been attacked and that he wished to reply; but these matters are surely all very remote from the matter under discussion.

Mr. Bing

I was putting forward what I thought would be a series of matters which might usefully be discussed as subjects for new Clauses on the Report stage. If we are going to alter the licensing law in regard to the new towns so as to give some advantage to the brewers it would obviously be desirable to alter it so as to give some advantage to the tenant.

It would be desirable, in the interests of the ordinary publican, surely, to say that he should not be thrown out at the whim of the friends of hon. Members opposite. I should have thought that a new Clause of that sort would be worthy of consideration by the House of Commons and, in order to get that consideration, we need a little more time.

So far as the utiliser is concerned, if we try to attract people to the new towns surely it is undesirable, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself would say, to give them more than 10 per cent. overspill in that area. I would think there would be some resentment if the provision were cut out altogether. That would interfere too much with brewery profits. But surely in this matter we could come to some reasonable compromise—say not over 10 per cent. overspill to be sold in the new towns. Surely this is something on which we could get together and have all-party agreement.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know who the brewers are to be. We do not know whether Watney Combe Reid and Company are to be allowed to operate in the new towns, or whether the people who actually recommend utilisers are to be excluded. There are an immense number of questions arising here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was most anxious that when a tenant was replaced there should be somewhere for him to live in the new town.

He has only to open the "Morning Advertiser," a thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not do, otherwise he would be rather too disgusted at the task which he has been set to perform, because in the "Morning Advertiser," which is a good newspaper, for it faithfully reports what the brewers say—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not see how this affects the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Bing

I quite appreciate that, and if I might I will explain how it does arise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What I am saying at the moment is that we need a little more time for the Report stage. There are, of course, on the Order Paper a number of new Clauses which are not likely to be discussed in Committee, but they are matters which ought to be discussed by the whole House. That has the advantage that hon. Members can only speak on them once, and we could deal with them by a time-table or by some informal arrangement and discuss some of these points. I do not want to go into that in detail but to indicate to the House what they are and what sort of topics we could debate if we had this extra time on the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

What is in those Amendments and new Clauses can only arise when we come to consider the Bill.

Mr. Bing

I know, but with very great respect what I am arguing is in favour of more time for the Report stage, and what that more time should be devoted to. Obviously, if we are only going to have six Sittings at the most in Committee, we shall have to devote a great deal of that time to the more technical aspects of this Bill, because the Brewers' Society themselves, on the one hand, have suggested a number of Amendments, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has thought of some himself. It is very fortunate that they coincide.

The discussion of these Amendments of the Brewers' Society might well occupy the whole of the six Sittings, particularly if we have to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what they mean. Under those circumstances it would be desirable—and this is what I am trying to argue—for us to have a little more time on the Report stage to deal with more general matters, which I was going to suggest can more properly be discussed in the House.

What are these matters more proper to be discussed in the House? On the general issue, I would have thought a suitable subject would be, what is to be the type of licensed premises in the new towns? At least, let us try to produce a suitable type of licensed premises. The House may have decided against the principle of State management, but that does not necessarily mean that we must automatically, without any consideration, go back to the tied house.

If we are to get something between the tied house and the State-managed house, there has to be much consideration given to the matter in this House, because one thing is certain—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind is fixed in such grooves that it invariably reproduces what the brewers are thinking. We all know that they do not consider a free house a good thing. In those circumstances, would it not be a good thing for some time to be given in the House to put an alternative point of view? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is always so courteous, has only one fault; like the Foreign Secretary, he is never told what is happening.

The issues which I suggest the House should discuss, and which, I think, would take two days on Report stage, are these. First of all, in regard to the extent of this Bill, is it really desirable to hand over all the houses which are being built out of public money to the brewers for them to make a profit out of?

Second, as it is with public money they are being brought into the new towns, is it desirable that there should be—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is going beyond the Amendment, is he not?

Mr. Bing

These are suggestions that, I think, should be discussed. I am not arguing them now. I think they should be discussed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think they should be discussed, but not at the moment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

If my hon. and learned Friend is out of order in suggesting the things that must be discussed, I wonder if we could be told what we can discuss on this Amendment, if not the things to which he has referred?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Members can show reasons why they think the Report stage should not be subject to the Guillotine, but to go into all the possibilities of what might happen on Report stage must be out of order, I think, on this Amendment.

Mr. Hale

Further to that point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to an occasion when a precisely similar Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Mackeson), now the Secretary for Overseas Trade, to the Allocation of Time Motions for the Transport and Town and Country Planning Bills in 1947? The Amendment was to leave out the Report and Third Reading stages. The wording of that was different from that of this Amendment, but the purpose was precisely the same.

On that occasion the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe developed a very vigorous and, indeed, a very strong case against what be described as an undemocratic Measure. He was supported by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who, I see, is in his place. and who described the Guillotine as making of Parliamentary procedure … a mere Belsen ghost of what used to be the robust body of Parliamentary democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 150.] The debate then lasted a very considerable time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Had I been in the Chair, it would have been my duty to stop the hon. Member.

Mr. Bing

Without going as wide as some hon. Gentlemen opposite were apparently permitted to do on that other occasion when discussing the same matter, I think I am entitled, with great respect, to indicate why the two days are necessary, because, clearly, if there were nothing to discuss we should not have two days to discuss it. The argument in favour of this Amendment is that there are so many matters that require discussion. I am venturing to put forward one or two.

There may have to be a comparatively teetotal Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). I am sorry he is not in his place for a little time to discuss in this House a matter to which he has devoted so much of his life. It seems depressing when someone who has devoted so much of his life to a subject should not be here when there is an opportunity to put the case for it and add his elequence to mine, that would, perhaps, persuade the Lord Privy Seal to grant a little extra time.

Why is there to be only one day? Is it that the Government do not want their supporters to speak on this matter? That might well be it. Certainly in the Committee upstairs they never have done. Only the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who received a special mention from the Brewers' Society, put down an Amendment which started a telepathic chain to other of his hon. Friends. Only he has addressed the Committee.

Mr. Alport

No.

Mr. Bing

I forgot; the hon. Member for Colchester spoke on a procedural point. But it might be desirable really to get an expression of opinion, because this is a Parliament, and one appreciates the difficulties of right hon. and hon. Members opposite vis-à-vis the brewers; but there is no valid reason why others, not so closely connected, cannot express an independent opinion. After all, it would make the thing look so much better.

But, if no other argument prevails, perhaps I can suggest window dressing; it has been done before. Witness the Gracious Speech at the beginning of this Parliament; why not some sort of window dressing? Let the Government put up a few people like the hon. Member for Wimbledon. What is the harm in a few good intentions being expressed? So long, I hasten to add, as the Patronage Secretary, who I am glad to see is in his place at the moment, is not here to see that they are carried into the Division Lobby.

Why are not some Amendments from the other side put down for us to consider? After all, many hon. Members over there represent new towns, and in these circumstances, I make a most sincere plea to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope I shall not be accused of being "synthetic," or something of that sort. We all know that he gives the House his view with perfect honesty; that what he says he believes in his heart. Those who look at things from a rather different angle might suggest that he is merely a "front" being put up to make arguments that others dare not make. I do not believe it. He comes here and says what he says because he believes it, and the House would appreciate an opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain how he, of all people, ever came to think in this way.

10.44 p.m

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I do not think that anyone in this House could refuse an invitation expressed with such charm and sincerity of feeling as that just expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I am moved to deal with the points he has made at once, but if I, in turn, may ask him to be serious for a moment, I am sure he would be the first to recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), preceded him in time, if he did not equal him in length of time, and the points that he made require some attention first.

The hon. Member for Fife, West really based his arguments on the needs of Scotland. May I remind him of something I said in answer to an intervention which the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) was good enough to let me make in his speech? It was that with regard to Scottish matters I hope that the Business Sub-Commitee will be able so to constitute the compartments under which the Bill is considered that there will be at least a day for consideration of Clause 7, the Scottish Clause.

Whether there will be more than a day depends on the time which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen choose to occupy on the earlier Clauses. I hope that will be the position, and I must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is possible to show a certain selectivity on Amendments so that what they consider the most important ones will be discussed.

On the next point that the hon. Gentleman made, namely, the question of the Report stage—as I think you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pointed out in another connection—the reports of the Standing Committee are published and are available to the entire House. If there is that tense interest in certain Scottish aspects which the hon. Gentleman said was so generally felt, it will not be difficult for hon. Members who are not on the Committee to note the points in which they have such a tense interest and to put down Amendments which will receive due consideration from the Chair when the Report stage is reached.

Mr. Woodburn

I can understand that the Business Sub-Committee might allocate a certain amount of time for different groups of Amendments, but the point which the Home Secretary has not covered is the fact that there is not one of his Scottish hon. Friends on the back benches who have an opportunity of putting any Amendments on the Committee stage. Does he consider that there will still be time to deal with any Amendments they may put down or with any Amendments which my hon. Friends may wish to put down on the Report stage? Will those be guaranteed a fair chance amongst the rest of the business?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am sorry if I did not make the point clear. I was saying that it is possible for everyone who is not on the Committee, if they are interested in the subject, to follow what has taken place, what has been discussed and what has not been discussed in the Committee. If some points stand out prominently as not having been dealt with in Committee, and are put down for Report stage that, I have always been told—though I would not for a moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, intrude on those high mysteries of the management of the House, which I do not know—is a good reason for consideration for selection.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking today as Secretary of State for the Home Department only or also as Minister for Welsh Affairs? If he is speaking in his dual capacity, has he observed that there is no Welsh Member on the Standing Committee, and that Welsh Members have a point of view in these matters which we may find very difficult to express in an abbreviated debate?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The hon. Lady must conclude that although licensing is a traditional duty of the Home Secretary, where there is a conjoint office the other part of the conjointcy is not wholly absent, and I shall bear the point in mind. But, of course, as the hon. Lady is no doubt aware from the earlier discussions, it is not in order for the House at the moment to criticise the Committee of Selection for any failures in that way.

I was passing to the points that had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. I hope again that he will not take it amiss if I do not reply on this occasion to every point that he has made, if he will allow me to say so and with great good temper, at least twice before in the discussions we have had. The question of utiliser, for instance, he has utilised on at least two occasions.

Mr. Bing

Will the Home Secretary also say, with great good temper, that he refused on both those other occasions to deal with the point then?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

On a mere question of fact, I should be prepared to jog the hon. and learned Member's memory. I think he will find that he made the utiliser point on the first occasion after I had made my speech. As to the second occasion, I will not tax my memory. I cannot remember entirely. However, I will let the point go.

The principle I shall adopt—I do not think it is a bad principle—is that one should not accept, that when—I think it is in "Alice Through the Looking Glass,"—a thing is said three times it is automatically correct. I think one might amend that to the extent of saying that when a thing is said three times it does not require an answer of the same length.

But there is one point of which I should remind the hon. and learned Member when he discusses the background and its effect on the amount of time we should give to the Report stage. He alleged a certain lack of interest in certain quarters of the House on this matter. I should remind him—I do not think he has really considered this point—that there was a considerable lack of interest in his own party when this matter was brought before the House.

I am not for the moment emphasising the fact that 87 of his colleagues abstained or that three who had been returned as Socialists voted against the Bill, because that might be highly irrelevant on the question of the Report stage; but I am reminding him—and I think it is a fair point—that when the Bill which this Bill is amending was in this House the Report stage occupied one day, and the Third Reading half a day. That Bill, as I pointed out, was a Bill of 43 Clauses and four Schedules, and roughly five times the size of this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the total figures he can accept the figures for Part I which I quoted this afternoon.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

How long was that Bill in Committee?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I counted 14 Sittings. I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman said 15. But I counted 14 and the Clauses corresponding to these Clauses took approximately 10 days, and there was an extra period of one to two days for Schedules. I do not want to repeat the point; I did deal with it this afternoon. But I am always anxious to give information on a question of fact. That was the position with regard to the corresponding part of that Measure. I am dealing with the whole Bill, one of 43 Clauses and four Schedules, and for that one day was allowed for the Report stage and half a day for Third Reading.

There are two other points I wish to emphasise. If they look over the whole field of Report stage and Third Reading experiences—as I say, I have instanced a Bill of 43 Clauses and four Schedules—I am sure all hon. Members could find an equally long Bill in respect of which only one day has been given for the Report stage. There are the enormous nationalisation Bills, in which something like one-third of the Clauses were not discussed at all on the Committee stage.

I think that in one case there was a four-day Report stage and in another case a three-day Report stage. Those were very long Bills. For medium Bills it is quite common to have one day for Report and Third Reading together. And on the run of Bills in this House, I do not think anyone could object to this proposal.

My third point is that it will be seen that we have allowed in the time-table for the possibility of a statement being made or the development and perhaps rather lengthy exposition of views. I will not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the question of the content of the Bill or the matters which he raised on Second Reading and again in Committee. Although I am sure he will not be satisfied with them, replies have been made.

On his general point that there are subjects to be discussed, of course that is so. And the way to get the subjects nearest to his heart's desire discussed is for him and his hon. Friends to put their heads together to see that those subjects get priority in the Amendments placed before the House.

But the basis on which I must regretfully say that I cannot recommend to the House the acceptance of this Amendment is the ordinary experiences of the House, the special analogy of the Bill which this Bill is repealing in part and the provision we have made for statements and other interruptions.

10.58 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I feel I must carry a little further the point which I attempted to make in my intervention, and which was answered so courteously by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. At first I feared that he was schizophrenic, that he had a split personality in this matter, and that he was acting as the Secretary of State for the Home Department and keeping his personality as Minister for Welsh Affairs entirely apart. He has re-assured us on that point. He said he was acting conjointly, whatever that may mean, and I am, therefore, relieved about his mental health.

But it is difficult to imagine how he will be able to show his face again in Wales after the speech he made earlier today, because this a matter on which I think he will find that there is considerable public opinion in the Principality. I speak, I trust, as one who is not bigoted in this matter. I do not share the views of my fellow countrymen on the question of licensed premises, clubs and so on. But by tradition, there is a very strong feeling in many parts of Welsh Wales about the whole question of the trade in intoxicating liquor as something which will have a deleterious social effect.

Although we have in Wales at the moment only one new town, there have been discussions of other possible ones, one in Glamorgan and possibly one in my own constituency. This may be in the distant future, but surely in this Bill we may lay down precedents which may be followed in other new towns. It is of considerable importance, therefore, that we should have adequate time to discuss the matter from all points of view. I was not for a moment criticising the selection of Committee C upstairs; I was simply mentioning that it so happened that there is no Welsh representative upon it and therefore any particular Welsh point of view cannot be put.

I cannot go into the actual subject. I might be ruled out of order, as I have not the ingenuity of my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). But it is unfortunate to seek to curtail debate when there has been so little opportunity for the Welsh point of view to be put. The fact that we have only one new town in Wales at the moment should not preclude us from discussing matters of principle that may affect possible new towns in the future.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not really paying adequate regard to his responsibilities as Minister for Welsh Affairs in this matter, and I doubt whether he even gave a thought to the Welsh aspect in supporting this particular arrangement.

Sir D. Maxwell Fife indicated dissent.

Mrs. White

I think he is trying to imply he did, but assiduous as he has been in his duties as Minister for Welsh Affairs he has failed lamentably to ascertain Welsh opinion in this matter, on which no part of the United Kingdom is likely to have stronger feelings than Wales.

The Government are making a profound mistake. They have done a great deal in the last year or two to try to court Welsh opinion, and there have been suggestions that much of that has been window dressing. I hope, from the helpfulness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in many directions, that that is not so. But, if he acts in this way on a subject which has aroused considerable feeling in the Principality, he is really not as cognisant of Welsh sentiment as he should be in order competently to carry out his Ministerial duties.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has put for the first time in our discussions on this Bill the Welsh point of view. If any proof were needed that our discussions in Committee have not been, as some hon. Members suggested, unduly extended, it is that we have carried through these proceedings without any Members from Wales being present at all. It is further evidence that it is necessary to have a proper time for discussion on the Report stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has put the Welsh point of view; my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has put the Scottish point of view; and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has put the English point of view and various other aspects of the matter. I wish to put the point of view of another section of this House which has so far, in the whole of the discussion on the Bill, made no contribution to the debate at all.

Indeed, it is a remarkable state of affairs that, on a Bill dealing with matters concerning licensing, and in a debate which has developed into a discussion concerned with free speech in this House, there has been no contribution from the Liberal Party at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East spoke with very great authority on opinion in Wales, but I wonder what is the opinion in Wales on the fact that no Member of the Liberal Party has made any effort to take part in the proceedings either in the Committee stage or on the Guillotine Motion discussion tonight.

I can imagine that this is certainly the first licensing Bill in the whole history of the House on which no hon. Member of the Liberal Party has not participated in the proceedings, and I am quite sure that this is the first Guillotine Motion which has ever been presented to this House in the debate on which no Member of the Liberal Party has taken part. It is, therefore, all the more desirable that we should have a full Report stage so that the Liberal Party may pluck up its courage to say what exactly it does think on this question, and so that the diminishing areas of Wales still represented by the Liberal Party should have their views expressed and their voices heard on the Floor of this House.

In the absence of any speech from any Member of the Liberal Party, and in the absence of any opportunity for my hon. Friends from Scotland to put their point of view in the Committee, the dual burden of maintaining the cause of Liberalism and of Scotland falls on the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now nodding his head, but who is so cowed by his dual responsibilities that we have not heard a word from him.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)

As soon as a Scottish Amendment is proposed, I shall take my part in its consideration.

Mr. Foot

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech in this matter, and I am sure that we look forward to future opportunity of hearing him.

There was no reason why, in the Committee upstairs, all the replies—such as they were—from the Government Front Bench should be made by the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, and why he should have had no assistance from the other hon. Gentlemen sitting with him. Therefore, I hope we shall have the opportunity for a full Report stage, as proposed in this Amendment, not only in order that the genuine representatives of Liberalism should have their say, but in order that the hon. Gentleman should have his say as well and treat us to his views on the Bill.

Anyone who has followed the proceedings in the Committee will see that there is a very urgent reason why we should have a full Report stage to clear up what has been a central point in the whole controversy, both in the Committee and in the discussion on this Motion tonight, and that is the question of the position of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). This is a very serious matter, and many of us came to this debate today expecting that the proceedings would be preceded by a personal statement from the hon. Member for Wokingham.

We say that because anyone who has read the Committee proceedings will have seen that, originally, the hon. Member for Wokingham said he had declared his full interest. When it was pointed out to him that he had not declared his full interest, there was a long discussion in the Committee on whether he should have declared it, and I think that everybody in the Committee expected, at any rate, that the hon. Gentleman was going to take an early opportunity of declaring his full interest and explaining his position to the House.

Mr. Hale

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has referred to some remarks made during an interjection of mine. I have intervened three times, but have not been able to speak today, although I have been savagely attacked, because of the Patronage Secretary moving the Closure.

Mr. Foot

I know that my hon. Friend was directly excluded from speaking by the action taken by the Leader of the House. We always understood the Leader of the House had some responsibility for protecting the rights of all hon. Members in all parts of the House, but today he used his power as Leader to catch your eye, Sir, according to the statement you yourself made in reply to my question, to participate in the Debate. Then immediately he sought to prevent any other Member from continuing the discussion. It was a gross misuse of his position in the House. I can understand the indignation which my hon. Friend has shown when he imagined that I had suggested he had been able to make a contribution today.

Mr. Hale

Not indignation, but surprise.

Mr. Foot

I never forget any of the speeches my hon. Friend makes and I am sure he has not been able to speak today. But I would refer him to an intervention he made in Committee, when he pointed out to the hon. Member for Wokingham what was the declaration of interest he made. We have had, so far, from the hon. Member for Wokingham no indication of whether he is going to come forward and declare openly what is his position. Therefore, it is all the more urgent that we should give him time and opportunity on the Report stage to make up his mind to declare his interest fully and openly.

Mr. H. Hynd

Is it fair to make these suggestions about the silence of the hon. Member for Wokingham in his absence?

Mr. Foot

It is impossible to make them in the presence of the hon. Member. We tried to do so upstairs in his presence, but we never got any statement. He was present at the beginning of these proceedings when his name was mentioned. Therefore, I can only imagine—because I would not accuse the hon. Member for Wokingham of having been cowardly in retreat—it is at the orders of his Whips that he has been put out. They have told him, "You have caused enough trouble already. Clear out." They used the same kind of brute force to exclude the hon. Member today as they did to keep him in the Committee upstairs. But, in view of the intervention which the hon. Gentleman made upstairs, I have some sympathy, on this occasion, with the Government Whips.

Mr. Hynd

Is it not possible to subpoena him on this occasion?

Mr. Foot

It is not within my power to do so. I hope that the hon. Member for Wokingham will have made up his mind by the Report stage to make a full and open declaration to this House.

I would like to deal with the reply made by the Home Secretary, who has now left the House. He said he was not going to reply to all the points mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, because many of them had been raised in previous discussions. He happened to pick on the point concerning utilisers, and it had to be pointed out that, although my hon. and learned Friend did raise the question of utilisers on two previous occasions, he had been compelled to do so because he had received no answer.

We had the most cursory reply from the Home Secretary, who never made any effort to answer at length any of the points. Indeed, his failure to reply was all the more proof that the whole idea of sending the Bill upstairs was part of a frame-up and that the Government never intended to go through with it. They sent the Bill upstairs for a Sitting or two in order to give colour to the proceedings which are engaging the House at present.

But on the one Clause which we did discuss, and upon which there was a vote in the Committee, there was very good evidence of the necessity for having a full Report stage, because no attempt was made by the Home Secretary to answer the arguments. That imposes on those who wish to see this Bill adequately dealt with a duty to put down Amendments on the Report stage to try to get the answers which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused in Committee.

I will give one very plain example of a vital issue which was raised on the first Amendment and to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman never attempted to make a proper reply. It was an Amendment proposing that the date of the operation of this Measure should be postponed until Christmas, 1953. Some of my hon. Friends, including myself, tried to discover the actual physical facts about these new public houses in process of building or to be built in the future. We put specific questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the three public houses which, according to what he told us today, are now in the process of being built.

When this Measure was first introduced we were told by the Home Secretary that they were about to be started. That was when we had the Second Reading in February of this year. He said that building had either just started or was about to be started. This raises a very peculiar point because one of the first acts of this Government when they came to power was to impose a ban on all building with the exception of house building.

They said that housing must go forward, but there was a ban on every other type of building, including schools and hospitals. But somehow or another these three public houses escaped the ban, and we asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman how it was they had done so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered this part of the point by saying that it was not for us to complain because the arrangements for building these public houses had been made in the days of the previous Government.

That may well be so. There were many arrangements for building made by the previous Government which were stopped when this Government came into office. There were many buildings in my own city of Plymouth for which all the arrangements had been made before they came to office. The steel had been allocated, and everything had been fixed, yet when this Administration came into power they imposed a ban on many buildings in the blitzed cities.

But these three public houses were allowed to go ahead, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to explain why. That is one of the reasons why we wish to have a full and proper debate on that aspect on Report stage. We will have no other opportunity of discussing it in Committee because this Clause has been passed.

There is another aspect concerning the public houses to be built in the new towns during the coming twelve months. We are told that the matter is urgent, and that we must have this Guillotine Motion to curtail and truncate the Committee stage, and that we should have only a very brief Report stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has attempted to give some explanation about this. He has said there is to be activity in the new towns during the coming 12 months. In addition to the three public houses already being built there are to be 12 more. So the suggestion is that between now and Christmas, 1953, some 12 new public houses are to be built in the new towns of this country.

This is at a time when the Government are rigorously rejecting applications for licences for all kinds of other buildings, and it will be of some interest to those hundreds and thousands of people all over the country who, almost every week, are being refused licences for building by the Ministry of Works, to discover that the Government are now discussing licences for 12 new public houses, and that Parliament is being asked to approve the whole elaborate procedure of a Guillotine Motion in order to enable those 12 public houses to be built.

I am glad to see the Prime Minister has come into the Chamber. If I might, I should like to call him in aid of what I am saying. During the last two General Elections he visited my constituency. They were not very successful visits, and we shall be very glad to see him again on a third occasion. The right hon. Gentleman visited the city of Plymouth in January, 1950, and he walked over the bombed areas in the centre of the city. As he looked around and failed to understand the preparatory work that had been done and as he saw very few new buildings in the centre of that city, he said that he would have been ashamed to have been responsible for a Government which had left the city like that. "Ashamed" is the word he used.

Mr. Speaker

This surely is very far away from the Motion before the House. I appreciate the effort of the hon. Member to bring in his constituency as often as he can, but that is very remote from the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Foot

What I was arguing about was the issue of licences for these new public houses. I am sorry that I am unable to complete my story, which I think would have been completely in order. It was a fact that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman's Government came into office they took two decisions.

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

Is the hon. Gentleman in order in thwarting your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and in going on with his speech as he is doing?

Mr. Speaker

I thought the hon. Gentleman was drawing to a conclusion and returning to the Question that is before the House.

Mr. Foot

The Government took two decisions at the same time when they came into office. One was to stop licences in all blitzed cities and in other cities of the country, and the other was to prepare to drive through the House of Commons by any means this proposal to have a Guillotine and an abbreviated Report stage for this Bill to get these 12 extra public houses built. The Prime Minister may not be as interested in that as those who have had licences refused by the Ministry of Works for any kind of structure.

This Government, while refusing licences for schools, give them for these public houses, and when an Amendment seeking to reverse this is put down the Government refuse to give any reply, so that it is necessary to have a longer Report stage. We hope the Prime Minister will come along and give us the benefit of his counsel then. We may be able to get replies from him more easily than from the Home Secretary.

But if there were any further grounds required for ensuring that we do have a more extensive Report stage they were provided by the behaviour of the Home Secretary during the Committee stage. It has not been revealed to the House exactly what happened, or what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misled the Committee about the whole of the proceedings which were to go forward.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House earlier tonight that—this was the phrase he used, I think: the phrase he always fell back on when he was producing an argument for abbreviating our discussions—what happened in the Committee upstairs was that there was "discussion of a fraction of a Clause in four Sittings." That is what he said. He knows perfectly well that a large part of those Sittings was taken up with a discussion which was quite superfluous—

Brigadier Clarke

The "Bing boys" again.

Mr. Foot

—but for the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman resisted an Amendment which in the end he accepted. If he had accepted it in the beginning he would have avoided that expenditure of time. It would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have avoided the last part of that discussion if, instead of seeking to move the Closure himself right at the beginning, he had been prepared to listen to a little more of the discussion,

when he would have been convinced the sooner, and would have shown a better grace to the Committee, and would not have sought to resist our proceedings by moving the Closure within 28 minutes of the start of the proceedings.

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 House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 253.

Division No. 214.]	AYES	[11.28 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	De la Bère, Sir Rupert	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Deedes, W. F.	Hurd, A. R.
Alport, C. J. M.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Donner, P. W.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Arbuthnot, John	Doughty, C. J. A.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Drayson, G. B.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Drewe, G.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Astor, Hn. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Duthie, W. S.	Kaberry, D.
Baker, P. A. D.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Baldwin, A. E.	Erroll, F. J.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Banks, Col. C.	Finlay, Graeme	Lambert, Hon. G.
Barber, Anthony	Fisher, Nigel	Lambton, Viscount
Barlow, Sir John	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Baxter, A. B.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Fort, R.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Foster, John	Leather, E. H. C.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Gage, C. H.	Lindsay, Martin
Birch, Nigel	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Linstead, H. N.
Bishop, F. P.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Black, C. W.	Gammans, L. D.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Godber, J. B.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Low, A. R. W.
Braine, B. R.	Gough, C. F. H.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Gower, H. R.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	McAdden, S. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	McCallum, Major D.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Harden, J. R. E.	McKibbin, A. J.
Bullard, D. G.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bullock, Capt. M	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maclean, Fitzroy
Burden, F. F. A.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Cary, Sir Robert	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Channon, H.	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Hay, John	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Heald, Sir Lionel	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.)	Heath, Edward	Markham, Major S. F.
Cole, Norman	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Colegate, W. A.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Maude, Angus
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Maudling, R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Cranborne, Viscount	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Hollis, M. C.	Mellor, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hope, Lord John	Molson, A. H. E.
Crouch, R. F.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Horobin, I. M.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgshire)	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Nicholls, Harmar
Davidson, Viscountess	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Roper, Sir Harold	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Russell, R. S.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth
Nugent, G. R. H.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Thomton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nutting, Anthony	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Tilney, John
Oakshott, H. D.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Odey, G. W.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Turner, H. F. L.
Ormshy-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Scott, R. Donald	Turton, R. H.
Orr Capt. L. P. S.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Shepherd, William	Vane, W. M. F.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Osborne, C.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Vosper, D. F.
Partridge, E.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.	Soames, Capt. C.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Peyton, J. W. W.	Speir, R. M.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Pitman, I. J.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wellwood, W.
Powell, J. Enoch	Stevens, G. P.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Profumo, J. D.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Raikes, H. V.	Storey, S.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Rayner, Brig. R.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Wills, G.
Redmayne, M.	Summers, G. S.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Remnant, Hon. P.	Sutcliffe, H.	Wood, Hon. R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Taylor, William (Bradlord, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Robson-Brown, W.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)	Mr. Butcher and Mr. Studholme.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hastings, S.
Adams, Richard	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hayman, F. H.
Albu, A. H.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Herbison, Miss M.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Deer, G.	Hobson, C. R.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Delargy, H. J.	Holman, P.
Awbery, S. S.	Dodds, N. N.	Holt, A. F.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Donnelly, D. L.	Houghton, Douglas
Baird, J.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hoy, J. H.
Balfour, A.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Edelman, M.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bence, C. R.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Benn, Wedgwood	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Benson, G.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Beswick, F.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Bing, G. H. C.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Janner, B.
Blackburn, F.	Ewart, R.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Blenkinsop, A.	Fernyhough, E.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Blyton, W. R.	Field, W. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Fienburgh, W.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Bowden, H. W.	Finch, H. J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Brockway, A. F.	Follick, M.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Foot, M. M.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Keenan, W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Freeman, John (Watford)	Kenyon, C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	King, Dr. H. M.
Burke, W. A.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Gibson, C. W.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock).
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Gooch, E. G.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Callaghan, L. J.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Carmichael, J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Lewis, Arthur
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Lindgren, G. S.
Champion, A. J.	Grey, C. F.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Chapman, W. D.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Logan, D. G.
Clunie, J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacColl, J. E.
Cooks, F. S.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	McGhee, H. G.
Coldrick, W.	Grimond, J.	McInnes, J.
Collick, P. H.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	McLeavy, F.
Cove, W. G.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hamilton, W. W.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Crosland, C. A. R.	Hannan, W.	Mainwaring, W. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hargreaves, A.	Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Daines, P.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Mann, Mrs. Jean

Manuel, A. C.	Pryde, D. J.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Mayhew, C. P.	Rankin, John	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Mellish, R. J.	Reeves, J.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mitchison, G. R.	Reid, William (Camlachie	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.I
Monslow, W.	Rhodes, H.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Moody, A. S.	Richards, R.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Timmons, J.
Morley, R.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Tomney, F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mort, D. L.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Usborne, H. C.
Moyle, A.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Watkins, T. E.
Murray, J. D.	Royle, C.	Weitzman, D.
Nally, W.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Wells, William (Walsall)
O'Brien, T.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	West, D. G.
Oldfield, W. H.	Short, E. W.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Oliver, G. H.	Shurmer, P. L. E.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Orbach M.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Oswald, T.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Padley, W. E.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wigg, George
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Slater, J.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, David (Neath)
Pannell, Charles	Snow, J. W.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlillery)
Pargiter, G. A.	Sorensen, R. W.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Parker, J.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Pearson, A.	Sparks, J. A.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Peart, T. F.	Steele, T.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Poole, C. C.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Popplewell, E.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.
Porter, G.	Stross, Dr. Barnett	Wyatt, W. L.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Yates, V. F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Swingler, S. T.
Proctor, W. T.	Sylvester, G. 0.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 274 Noes, 251.

Division No. 215.]	AYES	[11.38 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Butcher, H. W.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Alport, C. J. M.	Gary, Sir Robert	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Channon, H.	Gage, C. H.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Gammans, L. D.
Arbuthnot, John	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Cole, Norman	Godber, J. B.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Colegate, W. A.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Gough, C. F. H.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Gower, H. R.
Baker, P. A. D.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Graham, Sir Fergus
Baldwin, A. E.	Cranborne, Viscount	Gridley, Sir Arnold
Banks, Col. C.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Barber, Anthony	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Barlow, Sir John	Crouch, R. F.	Harden, J. R. E.
Baxter, A. B.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hare, Hon. J. H.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Cuthbert, W. N.	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Davidson, Viscountess	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	De la Bère, Sir Rupert	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Deedes, W. F.	Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Birch, Nigel	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hay, John
Bishop, F. P.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Heald, Sir Lionel
Black, C. W.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Heath, Edward
Boothby, R. J. G.	Donner, P. W.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Drayson, G. S.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Braine, B. R.	Drewe, C.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Duthie, W. S.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Erroll, F. J.	Hollis, M. C.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Finlay, Graeme	Hope, Lord John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Fisher, Nigel	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bullard, D. G.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Horobin, I. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Fort, R.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Burden, F. F. A.	Foster, John	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Mellor, Sir John	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Molson, A. H. E.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Hurd, A. R.	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Soames, Capt. C.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Speir, R. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Nicholls, Harmar	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Stevens, G. P.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Kaberry, D.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward	Nutting, Anthony	Storey, S.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Oakshott, H. D.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lambert, Hon. G.	Odey, G. W.	Studholme, H. G.
Lambton, Viscount	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Summers, G. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Sutcliffe, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Leather, E. H. C.	Orr-Ewhig, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Osborne, C.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Partridge, E.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lindsay, Martin	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Linstead, H. N.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Tilney, John
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Low, A. R. W.	Pitman, I. J.	Turner, H. F. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Turton, R. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Vane, W. M. F.
McAdden, S. J.	Profumo, J. D.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
McCallum, Major D.	Raikes, H. V.	Vosper, D. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Rayner, Brig. R.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McKibbin, A. J.	Redmayne, M.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Maclean, Fitzroy	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Robson-Brown, W.	Watkinson, H. A.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Roper, Sir Harold	Wellwood, W.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Russell, R. S.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Markham, Major S. F.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Wills, G.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Scott, R. Donald	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maude, Angus	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Wood, Hon. R.
Maudling, R.	Shepherd, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Major Conant and
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Donnelly, D. L.
Adams, Richard	Burke, W. A.	Driberg, T. E. N.
Albu, A. H.	Burton, Miss F. E.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Callaghan, L. J.	Edelman, M.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Carmichael, J.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Awbery, S. S.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Champion, A. J.	Edwards, W. J.(Stepney)
Baird, J.	Chapman, W. D.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Balfour, A.	Clunie, J.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Cocks, F. S.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Coldrick, W.	Ewart, R.
Bence, C. R.	Collick, P. H.	Femyhough, E.
Benn, Wedgwood	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Field, W. J.
Benson, G.	Cove, W. G.	Fienburgh, W.
Beswick, F.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Finch, H. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Crosland, C. A. R.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Follick, M.
Blackburn, F.	Daines, P.	Foot, M. M.
Blenkinsop, A.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Blyton, W. R.	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Freeman, John (Watford)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bowden, H. W.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Gibson, C. W.
Brockway, A. F.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Gooch, E. G.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Deer, G.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Delargy, H. J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Dodds, N. N.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Grey, C. F.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Grimond, J.	Manuel, A. C.	Slater, J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mayhew, C. P.	Snow, J. W.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Mellish, R. J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Hamilton, W. W.	Mikardo, Ian	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hannan, W.	Mitchison, G. R.	Sparks, J. A.
Hargreaves, A.	Monslow, W.	Steele, T.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)	Moody, A. S.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hastings, S.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hayman, F. H.	Morley, R.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Mort, D. L.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Herbison, Miss M.	Moyle, A.	Swingler, S. T.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Murray, J. D.	Sylvester, G. O.
Hobson, C. R.	Nally, W.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Holman, P.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Holt, A. F.	O'Brien, T.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Houghton, Douglas	Oldfield, W. H.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Hoy, J. H.	Oliver, G. H.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Orbach, M.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oswald, T.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Padley, W. E.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Timmons, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Tomney, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Pannell, Charles	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Pargiter, G. A.	Usborne, H. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Parker, J.	Watkins, T. E.
Janner, B.	Peart, T. F.	Weitzman, D.
Jeger, George (Goole)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Poole, C. C.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Popplewell, E.	West, D. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Porter, G.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Proctor, W. T.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pryde, D. J.	Wigg, George
Keenan, W.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Wilkins, W. A.
Kenyon, C.	Rankin, John	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.	Reeves, J.	Williams, David (Neath)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Rhodes, H.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Richards, R.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lewis, Arthur	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lindgren, G. S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Logan, D. G.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
MacColl, J. E.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Wyatt, W. L.
McGhee, H. G.	Royle, C.	Yates, V. F.
McInnes, J.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
McLeavy, F.	Shawcross. Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Mr. Pearson and
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Short, E. W.	Mr. Horace Holmes.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Delargy.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would respectfully submit that it would be for the convenience of the House if you would indicate whether you propose to call any of the Amendments other than the one you have now called, and further, how much time you will allow for the discussion of this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I do not propose to select any more Amendments beyond this one. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member's second question, that is for the House to decide, and not for me.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out "and Third Reading."

I wish to address my remarks primarily to the speech made by the Home Secretary this afternoon when he moved the Motion. I address myself to his remarks for several reasons. First, until I had heard him I did not know what I was going to say, because I thought it just possible that he would bring forward arguments to convince me that my Amendment was unnecessary. Secondly, I wish to correlate my remarks closely to his, so that I am all the time completely relevant and in order, thus obviating the need for busybodies opposite—who make no other contribution—to interrupt with points of order. Thirdly, I have a great deal of sympathy with him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a bad time this afternoon, and he will probably have an even worse time before this Bill gets through, if it ever does. I do not believe that he is really the villain of the piece; he is merely the acting villain, a stand-in for other people.

In moving this Amendment I intend chiefly to quote from his statement this afternoon, proving from his own words that this Amendment is most reasonable. He said, "This is not a major Bill." With all the sympathy I have for the right hon. and learned Gentleman I find it a little difficult to follow his thought processes sometimes. His logic during the last few days on this Bill has been bewildering. For having assured us this was not a major Bill he spent rather more than 50 minutes endeavouring to persuade Parliament to use the most formidable weapon in the constitutional arsenal to get the Bill through the House. The two things conflict.

All he attempted to prove was that the Guillotine Motion was urgent. He argued the urgency of the Bill which he said was not a major Bill. But if the importance of the Bill is not proved, then its urgency must be irrelevant. When we were in office and introduced the Guillotine, at all events it was for a very important Measure. We brought it in for the Transport Bill, and when we then debated the Guillotine everybody, on both sides, agreed it was a very important Bill, whether they disliked or approved it. It was so important that the Government say they are taking steps to repeal a very vital part of that Bill. So the position—in the opinion of the Government—is now reversed. Whereas the Transport Bill is important it is not urgent, and whereas this Bill is not important it is apparently urgent.

This illustrates the Government's rather peculiar priorities. They told us, in the Gracious Speech, that they were going to repeal an important part of the Transport Bill. They told us that its repeal was to come on before the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, but they have reversed their priorities. Perhaps the accountants of the Conservative Party have suddenly discovered that the brewers have made an even greater contribution to the party funds than the road hauliers.

But I really want to help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, therefore, for the purpose of the argument, and to extricate him from his dilemma and put him on the correct Parliamentary procedure, I am going to assume that this is an important Bill. Since it is an important Bill, surely, on the Third Reading, we should have at least as much time for its discussion as we have with an ordinary minor Bill. There are very few Bills indeed which go through this House with only half-a-day's discussion on Third Reading.

I know that there is a precedent about the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, but by the time we come to the Third Reading of that Bill we have been on it for months and we are all tired of it, anyway. But, on other occasions, even very minor Measures in this House are debated at least until 10 o'clock on Third Reading, and, that being the case, I submit that, on this Bill, which is so important that a Guillotine Motion has had to be introduced to deal with it, we should have at least the normal time for Third Reading, and not be cut off halfway through.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman further told us that it was his wish, in the first place, that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. It is not unfair for me to deduce from that statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not reluctant at that time to have the widest possible discussion and publicity, and to have the greatest possible number of hon. Members speaking on it, which, obviously, was the wise course. Unfortunately, he did not have his wish. The Bill was sent to a Committee upstairs, where there was far less discussion and far less publicity, and where the great majority of Members of Parliament were precluded from taking part in the discussions. That was obviously against the expressed desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself.

I want to go some little way in order to try to satisfy those desires which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself expressed. In allowing a little extra time, or indeed, the normal time, on Third Reading, he will get that little extra discussion and publicity which he desires, and he will also have something else which he desires—the opportunity for more hon. Members to take part. I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not afraid of discussion or publicity, and that he wants to see as many hon. Members as possible taking part in the debate. Therefore, I say to him that, in his own interests, and to meet his own desires, he ought really to accept this Amendment and let us have a full discussion on Third Reading.

The Home Secretary went on to say that this Motion invites comparison with any similar Motion. Since he has invited comparison with similar Motions, let us have some comparisons. I have already referred to the fact that the Labour Party, when in power, thought it fit and opportune to introduce a Guillotine Motion on the Transport Bill. Let us see if there are any similarities between this Motion and the one which the Labour Government moved in connection with the Transport Bill.

It seems to me that there are very great differences indeed. There is, first of all, a difference in the importance of the two Bills, to which I have already referred. In the case of the Transport Bill, we had had already three full days on the Second Reading, and, after a long time in Committee, we decided to apply the Guillotine. It was very strongly resisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but how did our Guillotine Motion apply to the Third Reading? Did we finish at seven o'clock? No, we did not even finish at the normal time of 10 o'clock. We had an extra hour, and did not finish the Bill until 11 o'clock.

Therefore, since comparisons have been invited, I gladly give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one. Will he, therefore, not do what we did in similar circumstances? Will he not allow us a full discussion on Third Reading and do the decent thing by going as far as we did and allow discussion to continue to 11 p.m.? The points I have made so far can all be deduced logically and inevitably from the statements made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in his speech, this afternoon. The arguments I have fairly made have been in accord with his own desires. How he can resist what are, in effect, his own arguments, I cannot imagine.

It is possible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not persuaded by his own arguments. In that case, perhaps, he might be persuaded by mine. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that some Labour Members in Standing Committee C have worked very long, hard, and seriously on this Bill. He himself has said we have tabled 18 pages of Amendments, Schedules, and new Clauses. I say, most seriously, to hon. Members, who have not perhaps had the time or taken the trouble to read these Amendments, that they were not frivolous ones. They were by no means filibustering Amendments. That is proved by the fact that the Chair has indicated that of all these Amendments, only two were ruled out of order, or were not selected, and that a couple more could be grouped into one composite Amendment.

They have taken time, patience, and study to table. It seems that the minority on the Committee, having gone to all this trouble and having taken their Parliamentary duties in Committee very seriously, are to be denied the opportunity of discussing the Amendments and the new Clauses they have put down. Further, we are to be precluded from developing these arguments at length on the Report stage. It is seeking very little to ask to be allowed to have some opportunity of discussing these points on Third Reading. That is a normal thing to ask and is in the best traditions of Parliamentary procedure, and, indeed, of ordinary decency.

Not only would it be right to extend the Third Reading debate in order to suit the convenience, and the right, of the minority in this House, but what about the majority? It is high time we heard from the Tories on this Bill. After all, it is their Bill. So far, they have been singularly reticent in the Committee upstairs. In fact, the one Member of the Government, apart from the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, who comes out of this argument with very great credit, is the Government Whip. Speaking as one who enjoyed that position for some time, I give him full marks. He sees that his Members are at the Committee at 10.30 a.m., and, indeed, at 10.29 a.m. But he is the only man who has done any labours on this Bill, and that is a great pity.

It is not very often that I accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite of any expert knowledge. I do not think they have very much knowledge of anything under the sun. But I am prepared to admit that on one or two subjects they can speak with great intimate and expert knowledge. Such a subject is the brewing and distillery trade. Being experts I think we ought to listen to them, and have the benefit of their expert advice, Whether, after speaking, they can vote or not I do not know. I suppose that is a matter for the Chair and not for me. But nothing stops them from speaking, even although due to their peculiar interest in the brewing and distillery trade they ought not to be allowed to vote.

Having dealt with the Labour Party and the Conservative Party I would like to say a word about the Liberal Party. I am delighted to see their Chief Whip here. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said this is probably the first time in Parliamentary history that the Liberals have not had something emphatic to say on this subject. Some time ago, for quite another purpose, I was reading through the speeches of one of the greatest Liberals ever to come into this House, Mr. Hilaire Belloc. To read his speeches from 1906 to 1910 is a very wonderful experience because the beauty of his prose and the power of his logic are exhilerating, even now.

Over and over again he spoke loud and long against the brewers and distillers and all the corruptions and plots which, he alleged, they entered into with various Members. He was as much disliked by the brewers as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). Mr. Hilaire Belloc did not speak against the brewers and distillers for quite the same reasons as my hon. Friend because no one would ever have accused Mr. Hilaire Belloc of being a member of the Band of Hope. But at all events Liberals have a great tradition in this matter.

The Liberal Party is represented by one Member on the Standing Committee. So far, we have not heard from the hon. Gentleman. But he has voted. On every occasion he has voted with the Tories, and I regret to say it is a rather unusual departure for a Liberal to vote with the Government on the question of the Closure. When we were in office the Liberals voted against us on Closure Motions, and similarly in this Parliament the Liberal Party, in the interests of fair speech and free discussion, have voted against such Motions. I am sorry that tradition is not being followed in Standing Committee.

I am aware, of course, of the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman came to be elected. I know he finds himself probably indebted to the Tory Party as they find themselves indebted to the brewers, but I hope it is not true of the Liberals in Parliament. I hope they are not going to support the Tories in this suppression of free speech. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made it clear he would not join the Government when invited by the Prime Minister because he wanted to keep his independence. Very well, let us now have a show of independence by the Liberals.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should not be showing our independence by voting with the Government?

Mr. Delargy

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was pointing out that the Liberal Party, in Standing Committee, have consistently voted for the Conservatives, even when the Closure has been applied. In the interests of free speech Liberals should not approve of that. It was in that endeavour that I was hoping for the support of the hon. Gentleman and his party. Furthermore, I was putting forward the view that we ought to have an extended discussion on the Third Reading to hear from the Liberals—

Mr. John Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

Who was this Liberal Member who so betrayed his principles?

Mr. Delargy

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt).

Mr. H. Hynd

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the position of that hon. Member? In Bolton, at the last Election, there was a coalition under which in one half of the town there was a Conservative and in the other half there was a Liberal. Liberals voted for the Tory and Tories voted for the Liberal. In fairness, therefore, the hon. Gentleman could not oppose the people to whom he is indebted.

Mr. Delargy

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I made the point myself rather more briefly. I said that I was aware—and I was delicate and tactful about it—of the peculiar circumstances which surrounded the hon. Gentleman's election and that, therefore, he feels himself indebted to the Conservative Party.

One last word. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) had spoken on behalf of the Welsh. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has spoken on behalf of the English, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) for Scotland. So far not a word has been said about the poor people in Northern Ireland. There is not one representative from Northern Ireland in the House now.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

You speak for them.

Mr. Delargy

It is a great pity, because there is a Member from Northern Ireland on the Committee. He is a Member whose eloquence we have not heard so far. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Wellwood) in his place now. He is a Member of the Committee, but he has not said anything on behalf of Northern Ireland or anyone else.

Mr. William Wellwood (Londonderry)

I did butt in when I got the chance, but there is not much chance for anyone else when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) starts.

Mr. Delargy

This Committee has already sat for 10 hours, but even the powers of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) did not allow them to speak for 10 hours uninterrupted. On several occasions Opposition Members of the Committee invited hon. Members on the Government side to speak.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. An observation has just been made from the other side of the House, which I do not think you heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was said it was almost impossible for a Member on the Government side to get called by the Chairman of this particular Standing Committee. It may have been said in a jocular way, but even when said in a jocular way such things can be taken as a serious reflection on the Chairman of the Committee upstairs, who is most anxious to call Members on the other side. I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean to create the impression that the Chair refused to call him because, in point of fact, we constantly pressed Members to speak, and I do not think that any inconvenience would have been created had they spoken.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not see how I can reply to that point of order. The Chairman calls whom he wishes.

Mr. Hale

But the statement was made that an hon. Member could not get in because only one Member was speaking all the time. It is difficult to imagine a more gross reflection on the Chairman than that.

Mr. Delargy

I will conclude by saying that the logical argument to be deduced from the statements made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is all in favour of the Amendment, and that we should have full discussion on Third Reading in order that the genuine efforts—the very sincere and conscientious efforts which have been made by the Members of the Labour Party—should have their full effect; so that we can hear from the experts on the brewing trade on the Tory side; and so that the Liberals can manifest their independence of speech—free and otherwise.

Brigadier Clarke

What about the hon. Gentleman's brewer?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the friendship that has been shown to the brewing trade by this House has existed for many years. There has always been a close relationship between the brewers and Parliament, irrespective of the political parties. That existed until the Socialist Party came to power. It is a rather interesting fact that in January, 1642, when Mr. Hampden, and Mr. Pym and Mr. Hazelrigg, Sir Arthur Hollis and Lord Mandeville, escaped from Parliament they took refuge in Coleman Street, in the City of London, in the house of one Alderman Pennington, who was a member of the Fishmongers' Company, although he was by trade a brewer.

That was how it started. Those Members took refuge with a brewer from King Charles I. It is quite to be understood that the Parliamentarians of the period would have had a great respect for the brewer who sheltered them in their distress. Indeed, within a month it led to this, that a Mrs. Annie Stagg brought a Petition to the Bar of the old House of Commons because trade in Southwark was bad, because there was much poverty, and taxes were heavy; and Mrs. Stagg was a brewer's wife. One can find a very close relationship between the House and brewery trade.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a close relationship between the Labour Party and many of the brewery trade at the present time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Many? "] Certainly.

Mr. Bence

I am seconding this Amendment, and I have no relationship with the brewery trade at all; none whatever. I represent a constituency in which we have a small burgh, Kirkintilloch, with no public house in it at all; none whatever.

Brigadier Clarke

After six years of Socialism?

Mr. Bence

The citizens of that burgh have no desire—no desire whatever—to have a public house installed. I believe that in view of the close relationship that the brewery trade has with this House [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Labour Party."]—the idea of cutting down the Committee stage and the Report stage arises from the publicity that is brought out in this Measure. It does not do the trade any good. That was why Alderman Pennington, who was a brewer by trade, joined the Fishmongers' Company. It has always been the case—because the brewers do not like the publicity drawn out in this House.

I myself have brought to the attention of Ministers requests for steel for schools, requests for steel for the construction of a refuse destructor in a burgh that was bombed and could not get steel, because, it was said, it was not available. I remember those cases when considering a Bill to effect the building of new public houses in new towns. What are we to say to our constituents in Scotland, particularly in my constituency, where we have not any great respect for the public house? What am I to say to my people when I am told by the Minister there is not raw material available—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not know what the hon. Member will tell his constituents in Kirkintilloch, but he must at present confine himself to why there should be only half a day for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Bence

I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of order, but I was saying what I was saying because my hon. Friends and I want an extended Third Reading of the Bill.

There are so many things to be done. Are there not 300,000 houses to be built? It did not state in the Tory Election manifesto that they were all to be public houses; I thought they were to be private houses—homes for the people. It has been suggested during our discussion that there may be some more new towns in Wales; and more in Scotland, as well as in England, and at the present rate it will not be long before the target of 300,000 is reached with public houses.

I shall do all I possibly can to stop this Bill passing through this House, or to help so to amend it that it will not be possible to operate it. My experience in my comparatively short life is that one must get it in black and white before one can accept anything put forward by hon. Members opposite. That is why I am so deeply concerned with trying to stop this Bill if I possibly can.

Speaking for myself, I would, say that in my constituency we have a situation with regard to school building which is shocking; and yet I am asked to pass a Bill which is to provide more and more public houses, using more and more labour and steel while we cannot get steel for new schools for our children or for other necessary social work. A few short weeks ago I urged upon the Minister the need for steel for dressing rooms and latrines on a recreation ground at Kirkintilloch; the permit was refused.

Brigadier Clarke

Quite right.

Mr. Bence

Are the public houses to get it all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I really cannot see how building permits in Kirkintilloch arise from this Amendment.

Mr. Bence

It is very relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I should not help to pass a Bill which enhances the likelihood of using precious raw materials in the building of public houses.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Is the hon. Member sure that raw materials would not be used in the building of State controlled public houses?

Mr. Bence

The development corporations would have the right and the power to give licences; but the corporations are asking for youth leaders. I have seen three advertisements in the Press from new towns which are seeking youth leaders. That means they will need youth centres, and libraries, and other amenities of civilised society; not the things which the public houses can offer. The new towns do not want that sort of "society." But, with the limited resources available to us, we cannot have it both ways, and hon. Members opposite are going to give it to the "pubs."

Brigadier Clarke

Will the hon. Member answer the question which has been put to him? What will the nationalised public houses be built of? Answer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not answer it because, if he does, he will be grossly out of order.

Mr. Bence

If hon. Members opposite are to keep their election promises, it is imperative to relegate Measures such as this to the bottom of the list and to stick to the job in hand, which is building 300,000 private houses and solving the economic problem. To do this sort of thing in the serious position in which the country is placed today is an insult to our people.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I hope that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Cecil Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

On a point of order. As one who has taken no part in the proceedings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I ask you whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to close the debate after the Amendment has been merely moved and seconded. It would be most unfair to back-benchers who have a serious point of view to put forward. I ask you to see that some of us have our right to put our point of view.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member will certainly have my protection, because I cannot accept the Closure anyway.

Mr. Hale

I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I sought the guidance of the Chair earlier. This morning I received formal notice from the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that he would attack me in the debate and make comments on my behaviour in the Committee. I have sat here for 10 consecutive hours whereas the hon. Member has not been visible for four hours. I complained at four o'clock. Have I any remedy against the possibility of Tory Members doing this to me every morning? Is there no protection whatever for an hon. Member who is asked as a matter of courtesy to be here to listen to a speech which apparently the hon. Member has no intention of making?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman has a remedy, but it is not a point of order. It is not for me to protect him on that.

12.28 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the somewhat complicated region which occupied a certain amount of his speech. However, I should like to reassure him seriously and sincerely on one point. He mentioned the use of steel. There is nothing in this Bill which means that an additional public house will be built in the new towns other than those that would have been built under State management, and I hope that will take away some of the real troubles which the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) for making so careful a study of the remarks I made and using them as a basis for his speech. I should like to deal with one or two of the points he made. He used an argument, which he said was culled from me, of comparison with the other Bills, but he extended it. I want to remind the hon. Member of the position. He mentioned the Transport Bill. That was a Bill of 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules. Adding those together and comparing the two Measures, he will see that the Transport Bill was roughly 15 times as large as this one. It was put on a time-table and the amount allowed for Report and Third Reading was only four allotted days, which certainly would not on any ordinary use of the time give more than one day for the Third Reading.

Mr. Delargy

It is true, of course, that the Transport Bill was a much longer and more important Bill. But there had been three full days on the Second Reading and no fewer than 77½ hours on Committee.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

May I just take up the point the hon. Gentleman has made. There were 33 meetings of the Committee for 140 Clauses and Schedules. I stated at the time that that was 24 minutes a Clause, and no one has corrected that piece of arithmetic of mine. That is not a very imposing amount as far as the Committee stage is concerned. If a Bill of that size only requires a Third Reading of one day at the most then I do not think that assists the hon. Gentleman's case. The Town and Country Planning Bill had 108 Clauses and nine Schedules, and there were allowed for that 26 Sittings in all and it works out about the same. But the hon. Gentleman should remember that the time-table Motion was moved after four Sittings of the Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill and without any notice that that step was going to be taken being given in the Committee—

Mr. Delargy

As in this case.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

—so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will really get much comfort from his researches.

But the real point—and I am sure he will appreciate its reality—is that on Third Reading it is only permissible to discuss what is in the Bill when it comes up for Third Reading. It is not possible either to discuss alternatives to that method of dealing with the problem, nor is it possible—you, Mr. Speaker, will correct me if I am wrong—to discuss the Amendments which might have improved the Bill had they been brought up. So a great deal of the very interesting argument which the hon. Gentleman made about the Third Reading really falls down on that, because it really is not an opportunity for referring to matters which one has not been able to deal with in Committee or on Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

It is possible on Third Reading to discuss why what is in the Bill is in the Bill, and that makes for an interesting and illuminating discussion.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I put it absolutely correctly: that it is only possible to discuss what is in the Bill—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

And why.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

—and not what is not in the Bill. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member was listening as carefully as I did to the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock. He was making the point that matters might be left out in Committee and on Report; why not give us more time on Third Reading; we might get them in then. You cannot. The other point is this. I do not agree, my recollection does not coincide with that of the hon. Member, but one day is the normal time for Third Reading. I have mentioned Bills which were of a considerable extent. But with ordinary Bills one is lucky if the Report stage and Third Reading get a day together, and often they are put in with other Orders. The hon. Gentleman put his argument most attractively and I am sorry that I cannot meet him. But for those reasons I am obliged to recommend the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hargreaves

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a more extended answer on the question of building of new premises? He will remember that I addressed a Question to him on this point on 25th February, asking what amount of money had been expended, especially with regard to new buildings. Today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned three new houses. In his reply to me on 25th February he said: The amount falling on the Vote for the State Management Districts, England and Wales, is estimated to be approximately £860."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 103.] I took that to mean the whole expenses of the meetings of the advisory committee, the architectural work, plans and that kind of thing. Today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the building of three houses. Is that included in this figure, or has there been a larger additional expenditure?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If I may answer that question, whether it is strictly in order or not, I would say there are two sums. One amount is to be spent on acquisition,

and there is also the amount which the development corporations will spend on buildings. I will check it and write to the hon. Member, but my recollection is that the sum was about £1,000 and it would appear that the £860 he mentioned was part of the acquisition figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the Second Reading debate. But I will certainly look into it and write to the hon. Member.

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 House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 224.

Division No. 216.]	AYES	[12.37 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Alport, C. J. M.	Crouch, R. F.	Hollis, M. C.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hope, Lord John
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Horobin, I. M.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Arbuthnot, John	Davidson, Viscountess	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Deedes, W. F.	Howard, Grevilie (St. Ives)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Baker, P. A. D.	Donner, P. W.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Baldwin, A. E.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Banks, Col. C.	Drayson, G. B.	Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Barber, Anthony	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir John	Duthie, W. S.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Baxter, A. B.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Kaberry, D.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Erroll, F. J.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Finlay, Graeme	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Fisher, Nigel	Lambert, Hon. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Lambton, Viscount
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Fort, R.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Birch, Nigel	Foster, John	Leather, E. H. C.
Bishop, F. P.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Black, C. W.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Lindsay, Martin
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Gage, C. H.	Linstead, H. N.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Braine, B. R.	Godber, J. B.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Gough, C. F. H.	Low, A. R. W.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Gower, H. R.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	MoAdden, S. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Bullard, D. G.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	McKibbin, A. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Harden, J. R. E.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Burden, F. F. A.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maclean, Fitzroy
Butcher, H. W.	Harris, Reader (Weston)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Cary, Sir Robert	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Channon, H.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hay, John	Markham, Major S. F.
Cole, Norman	Heald, Sir Lionel	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Colegate, W. A.	Heath, Edward	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Higgs, J. M. C.	Maude, Angus
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Maudling, R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Mellor, Sir John	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Molson, A. H. E.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Roper, Sir Harold	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Russell, R. S.	Thorneycroft, Rt Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Nicholls, Harmar	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Tilney, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)	Turner, H. F. L.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Scott, R. Donald	Turton, R. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Nutting, Anthony	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Vane, W. M. F.
Oakshott, H. D.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Vosper, D. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Osborne, C.	Soames, Capt. C.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Partridge, E.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.	Speir, R. M.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wellwood, W.
Pitman, I. J.	Stevens, G. P.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Powell, J. Enoch	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon. E. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Profumo, J. D.	Storey, S.	Wills, G.
Raikes, H. V.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Rayner, Brig. R.	Studholme, H. G.	Wood, Hon. R.
Redmayne, M.	Summers, G. S.
Remnant, Hon. P.	Sutcliffe, H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Taylor. William (Bradford, N.)	Mr. Drewe and
		Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Deer, G.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Adams, Richard	Delargy, H. J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Albu, A. H.	Dodds, N. N.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Donnelly, D. L.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Driberg, T. E. N.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Awbery, S. S.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Janner, B.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Jeger, George (Goole)
Baird, J.	Edelman, M.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Bence, C. R.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Benn, Wedgwood	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Benson, G.	Ewart, R.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Beswick, F.	Fernyhough, E.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Field, W. J.	Keenan, W.
Bing, G. H. C.	Fienburgh, W.	King, Dr. H. M.
Blackburn, F.	Finch, H. J.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Blenkinsop, A.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Blyton, W. R.	Follick, M.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Foot, M. M.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Bowden, H. W.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lewis, Arthur
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Freeman, John (Watford)	Lindgren, G. S.
Brockway, A. F.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Logan, D. G.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Gibson, C. W.	MacColl, J. E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (belper)	Gooch, E. G.	McGhee, H. G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	McInnes, J.
Burke, W. A.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Grey, C. F.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Carmichael, J.	Grimond, J.	Manuel, A. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Champion, A. J.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mayhew, C. P.
Chapman, W. D.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Mellish, R. J.
Clunie, J.	Hamilton, W. W.	Mikardo, Ian
Cocks, F. S.	Hannan, W.	Mitchison, G. R.
Coldrick, W.	Hargreaves, A.	Monslow, W.
Collick, P. H.	Hayman, F. H.	Moody, A. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Morgan. Dr. H. B. W.
Cove, W. G.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)	Morley, R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Herbison, Miss M.	Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)
Crosland, C. A. R.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Mort, D. L.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hobson, C. R.	Moyle, A.
Daines, P.	Holman, P.	Murray, J. D.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Holt, A. F.	Nally, W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Houghton, Douglas	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hoy, J. H.	O'Brien, T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Orbach, M
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oswald, T.

Padley, W. E.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Watkins, T. E.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Weitzman, D.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Pargiter, G. A.	Slater, J.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Parker, J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	West, D. G.
Pearson, A.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Peart, T. F.	Sparks, J. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Steele, T.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Poole, C. C.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Popplewell, E.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Wigg, George
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Stross, Dr. Barnett	Wilkins, W. A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Proctor, W. T.	Swingler, S. T.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Pryde, D. J.	Sylvester, G. O.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Rankin, John	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Reeves, J,	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Rhodes, H.	Taylor, Rl. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Wyatt, W. L.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)	Yates, V. F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.	Timmons, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartlay	Tomney, F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Short, E. W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn	Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.
Shurmer, P. L. E.	Usborne, H. C.

Question put accordingly, "That 'Third Reading' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 224.

Division No. 217.]	AYES	[12.47 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hay, John
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heald, Sir Lionel
Alport, C. J. M.	Cranborne, Viscount	Heath, Edward
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Crouch, R. F.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Arbuthnot, John	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Hirst, Geoffrey
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Davidson, Viscountess	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Deedes, W. F.	Hollis, M. C.
Baker, P. A. D.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Hope, Lord John
Baldwin, A. E.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Horobin, I. M.
Banks, Col. C.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Barber, Anthony	Donner, P. W.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Barlow, Sir John	Doughty, C. J. A.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Drayson, G. B.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Baxter, A. B.	Drewe, C.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Duthie, W. S.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hylton-Fosler, H. B. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Erroll, F. J.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Finlay, Graeme	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Birch, Nigel	Fisher, Nigel	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bishop, F. P.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Kaberry, D.
Black, C. W.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Keeling, Sir Edward
Boothby, R. J. G.	Fort, R.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Foster, John	Lambert, Hon. G.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Lambton, Viscount
Braine, B. R.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Gage, C. H.	Leather, E. H. C.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Godber, J. B.	Lindsay, Martin
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Linstead, H. N.
Bullard, D. G.	Gough, C. F. H.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Gower, H. R.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Burden, F. F. A.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Low, A. R. W.
Butcher, H. W.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Cary, Sir Robert	Harden, J. R. E.	McAdden, S. J.
Channon, H.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.i	McKibbin, A. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Cole, Norman	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Colegate, W. A.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Maclean, Fitzroy
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Summers, G. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Prafumo, J. D.	Sutcliffe, H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Raikes, H. V.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Markham, Major S. F.	Rayner, Brig. R.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Maude, Angus	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter(Monmouth)
Maudling, R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Tilney, John
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Russell, R. S.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Mellor, Sir John	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Turner, H. F. L.
Molson, A. H. E.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Turton, R. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Vane, W. M. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Scott, R. Donald	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Nicholls, Harmar	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Vosper, D. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Soames, Capt. C.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Nutting, Anthony	Spearman, A. C. M.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Speir, R. M.	Wellwood, W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Osborne, C.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Partridge, E.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D.	Stevens, G. P.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)	Wills, G.
Payton, J. W. W.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Wood, Hon. R.
Pitman, I. J.	Storey, S.
Powell, J. Enoch	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Studholme, H. G.	Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Holman, p.
Adams, Richard	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Holt, A. F.
Albu, A. H.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Houghton, Douglas
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Deer, G.	Hoy, J. H.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Delargy, H. J.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Awbery, S. S.	Dodds, N. N.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Donnelly, D. L.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Baird, J.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Bence, C. R.	Edelman, M.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Benn, Wedgwood	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Janner, B.
Benson, G.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Jeger, George (Goole)
Beswick, F.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Bing, G. H. C.	Ewart, R.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Blackburn, F.	Fernyhough, E.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Blenkinsop, A.	Field, W. J.	Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Blyton, W. R.	Fienburgh, W.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Finch, H. J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bowden, H. W.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Keenan, W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Follick, M.	King, Dr. H. M.
Brockway, A. F.	Foot, M. M.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Freeman, John (Watford)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lewis, Arthur
Burke, W. A.	Gibson, C. W.	Lindgren, G. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Gooch, E. G.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney. S.)	Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Logan, D. G.
Callaghan, L. J.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	MacColl, J. E.
Carmichael, J.	Grey, C. F.	McGhee, H. G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McInnes, J.
Champion, A. J.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Chapman, W. D.	Grimond, J.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Clunie, J.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cocks, F. S.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Coldrick, W.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Manuel, A. C.
Collick, P. H.	Hamilton, W. W.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hannan, W.	Mayhew, C. P.
Cove, W. G.	Hargreaves, A.	Mellish, R. J.
Craddock, George(Bradford, S.)	Hayman, F. H.	Mikardo, Ian
Crosland, C. A. R.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)	Mitchison, G. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Monslow, W.
Daines, P.	Harbison, Miss M.	Moody, A. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke N.)	Hobson, C. R.	Morley, R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Tomney, F.
Mort, D. L.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Moyle, A.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Usborne, H. C.
Murray, J. D.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Watkins, T. E.
Nally, W.	Short, E. W.	Weitzman, D.
Neal, Harold (Bolsoven	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
O'Brien, T.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Orbach, M.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	West, D. G.
Oswald, T.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Padley, W. E.	Slater, J.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Pargiter, G. A.	Sparks, J. A.	Wigg, George
Parker, J.	Steele, T.	Wilkins, W. A.
Pearson, A.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Peart, T. F.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Stross, Dr. Barnett	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Poole, C. C.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Popplewell, E.	Swingler, S. T.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Sylvester, G. O.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Proctor, W. T.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Pryde, D. J.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Rankin, John	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Wyatt, W. L.
Reeves, J.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Yates, V. F.
Rhodes, H.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)	Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Timmons, J.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Speaker

I must put the Question.

Mr. Hale

Upon the Main Question, upon which I have not spoken, I have

been seeking an opportunity for some considerable time to—

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. The hon. Gentleman will find this contingency provided for in Standing Order No. 29.

Main Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 249 Noes, 224.

Division No. 218.]	AYES	[12.57 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Fort, R.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Burden, F. F. A.	Foster, John
Alport, C. J. M.	Butcher, H. W.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Cary, Sir Robert	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Channon, H.	Gage, C. H.
Arbuthnot, John	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Cole, Norman	Godber, J. B.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Colegate, W. A.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Gough, C. F. H.
Baker, P. A. D.	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Gower, H. R.
Baldwin, A. E.	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Graham, Sir Fergus
Banks, Col. C.	Craddock, Beresford (spelthorne)	Gridley, Sir Arnold
Barber, Anthony	Cranborne, Viscount	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Barlow, Sir John	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Baxter, A. B.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Harden, J. R. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Crouch, R. F.	Hare, Hon. J. H.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cuthbert, W. N.	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Davidson, Viscountess	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Deedes, W. F.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Birch, Nigel	Digby, S. Wingfield	Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Bishop, F. P.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Hay, John
Black, C. W.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Heald, Sir Lionel
Boothby, R. J. G.	Donner, P. W.	Heath, Edward
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Drayson, G. B.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Braine, B. R.	Drewe, G.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Duthie, W. S.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Brooman-White, R. C.	Erroll, F. J.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Finlay, Graeme	Hollis, M. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Fisher, Nigel	Hope, Lord John
Bullard, D. G.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Horobin, I. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Mellor, Sir John	Speir, R. M.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Molson, A. H. E.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Stevens, G. P.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Nicholls, Harmar	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Storey, S.
Kaberry, D.	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S.)
Keeling, Sir Edward	Nugent, G. R. H.	Studholme, H. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Nutting, Anthony	Summers, G. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.	Sutclifle, H.
Lambton, Viscount	Orr, Capt L. P. S.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Osborne, C.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Partridge E.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Leather, E. H. C.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M,	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Lindsay, Martin	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Linstead, H. N.	Pitman, I. J.	Tilney, John
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Touche, Sir Gordon
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.	Turner, H. F. L.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Turton, R. H.
Low, A. R. W.	Profumo, J. D.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Raikes, H. V.	Vane, W. M. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Rayner, Brig. R.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
McAdden, S. J.	Remnant, Hon. P.	Vosper, D. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McKibbin, A. J.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Walker-Smith, D. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Roper, Sir Harold	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Maclean, Fitzroy	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Russell, R. S.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Wellwood, W.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Maitland, Comdr. J..F.W. (Horncastle)	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, B.)
Markham, Major S. F.	Scott, R. Donald	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Wills, G.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough. W.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Wood, Hon. R.
Maude, Augus	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Maudling, R.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Soames. Capt. C.	Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Redmayne.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Cooks, F. S.	Freeman, John (Watford)
Adams, Richard	Coldrick, W.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Albu, A. H.	Collick, P. H.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Gibson, C. W.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Cove, W. G.	Gooch, E. G.
Awbery, S. S.	Craddock, George (Bradford. S)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Crosland, C. A. R.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Baird, J.	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Grey, C. F.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Daines, P.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bence, C. R.	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Grimond, J.
Benn, Wedgwood	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Benson, G.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Beswick, F.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Deer, G.	Hamilton, W. W.
Bing, G. H. C.	Delargy, H. J.	Hargreaves, A.
Blackburn, F.	Dodds, N. N.	Hayman, F. H.
Blenkinsop, A.	Donnelly, D. L.	Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Blyton, W. R.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Herbison, Miss M.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Brockway, A. F.	Edelman, M.	Hobson, C. R.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Holman, P.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Holt, A. F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Houghton, Douglas
Burke, W. A.	Ewart, R.	Hoy, J. H.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Fernyhough, E.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Field, W. J.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Callaghan, L. J.	Fienburgh, W.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Carmichael, J.	Finch, H. J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Champion, A. J.	Follick, M.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Chapman, W. D.	Foot, M. M.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Clunie, J.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Janner, B.

Jeger, George (Goole)	O'Brien, T.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Orbach, M.	Swingler, S. T.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Oswald, T.	Sylvester, G. O.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Padley, W. E.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Pargiter, G. A.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Parker, J.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Keenan, W.	Pearson, A.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
King, Dr. H. M.	Peart, T. F.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Poole, C. C.	Timmons, J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Popplewell, E.	Tomney, F.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Lewis, Arthur	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Usborne, H. C.
Lindgren, G. S.	Proctor, W. T.	Watkins, T. E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Pryde, D. J.	Weitzman, D.
Logan, D. G.	Rankin, John	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
MacColl, J. E.	Reeves, J.	Wells, William (Walsall)
McGhee, H. G.	Rhodes, H.	West, D. G.
McInnes, J.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Royle, C.	Wigg, George
Manuel, A. C.	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Wilkins, W. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Mayhew, C. P.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Mellish, R. J.	Short, E. W.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian	Shurmer, P. L. E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Mitchison, G. R.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Monslow, W.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Moody, A. S.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Slater, J.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Morley, R.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Wyatt, W. L.
Mort, D. L.	Sparks, J. A.	Yates, V. F.
Moyle, A.	Steele, T.
Murray, J. D.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Nally, W.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Mr. Bowden and Mr. Hannan.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Stross, Dr. Barnett.

Question put, and agreed to.