HC Deb 30 March 1955 vol 539 cc487-99
Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, at the end, to insert: " or such greater sum as may from time to time be authorised by an order in the form of a statutory instrument: and provided also that the Secretary of State may make such orders as aforesaid, so however that no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament." The purpose of the Amendment, curiously enough, is to deal, not with something of special interest to Scotland, but a matter of House of Commons procedure. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and a former Home Secretary were among members of a Select Committee of the House which was appointed to deal with delegated legislation. In that Committee we had to consider the uses of delegated legislation and how the time of the House could be saved by eliminating unnecessary Bills and discussions.

The Select Committee made a very serious Report to the House, of which we thought the Government would at least take notice. It seems surprising that in Clause 16 the Government have practically gone out of their way to thumb their noses at the recommendations of the Select Committee. One of the purposes of the recommendations of the Select Committee, in analysing the various matters that come before the House, was to show that mere routine matters which did not require discussion of principle were far better dealt with by Statutory Instrument.

The principle of giving grants to the Scottish Special Housing Association has long since been settled. That is not in dispute. The Committee of Public Accounts, in its wisdom, suggested that there should be some method by which the House could control the amounts of the grants. Nobody would question that, but when the Government proceeded to put this recommendation into force they chose a most complicated way, which would most certainly upset the business of the House. They rejected the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation that these matters should be done in a businesslike way to save discussion in the House.

All that would be required in the way of a further step to raise the amount would be a simple Statutory Instrument to alter the figure of £75 million to £80 million or £100 million, as the House required. That Statutory Instrument would be under the control of the House. In Standing Committee on the Bill which we are now discussing, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to be under the impression that the Statutory Instrument would be subject to a Prayer, but he will find from the Amendment that we are suggesting an affirmative Resolution, which undergoes exactly the same procedure as a Bill except that it has one stage in the House instead of three.

If the amount of this money should require to be increased in the future, as it most likely will be, the Government have chosen, as a method of authorising that, the bringing of a Bill before the House where it will have a Second Reading, pass to the Committee stage, perhaps be dim-cussed in Committee, and then come back to the House, and have at least a Third Reading. But all that is necessary is that, if it approved the alteration of the amount, the House should approve a statutory affirmative Resolution.

We can understand that perhaps this was not thought of when the present Bill was being drafted, but surely when the matter was brought to the attention of the Government on Second Reading they should have gone into it seriously. They should not have held to the text of the Bill without going into the common sense of the matter from the point of view of carrying on the business of the House.

The Joint Under-Secretary made no reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) when they put these points to him in the Standing Committee. I hope that he has thought about the matter again, and that, as has been happening recently in connection with Scottish legislation, he will act in a reasonable way and accept reasonable suggestions, even when they come from this side of the House. This is something of which the whole House approves because it is an effort to eliminate unnecessary discussion and the unnecessary complication of Bills. 9.0 p.m.

There is one other point, from the Scottish point of view with which this Amendment deals, and that concerns the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has the duty of using alternative methods to supplement the output of the building trade in Scotland. It is necessary that that organisation should be able to get ahead speedily. If, for instance, there were congestion of legislation such as there has been in the past, a Bill is much more difficult to find time for in the Government's programme than is an affirmative Resolution. That is an additional argument why the Government should seriously consider the suggestions that I have put forward. They are so reasonable that I do not need to labour them further.

I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be prepared to agree to the acceptance of the Amendment, and to its embodiment in the Bill. It involves no sacrifice of principle but the adoption of a sensible course recommended by a Committee of the House. He ought to show his approval of the work of the Select Committee by agreeing to accept what is a sensible suggestion.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

This Clause has absolutely no relation to requisitioned houses which we have been discussing all day. Nor, unlike nine-tenths of the Bill, has it no relation to Scotland. It concerns a purely Scottish domestic matter. It relates to the question of the advances made from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Special Housing Association, a provision which for some unknown reason has been secreted away at the end of a purely English Measure. I hope that in future, after what has been said about that during the Committee and other stages of the Bill, that there will be no repetition on the part of the Scottish Office of an action of this kind.

The issue that is involved here is one to which my right hon. Friend has referred, as to whether it would be a better method to deal with this matter by Act of Parliament or by way of Statutory Instrument. The Joint Under-Secretary, in dealing with the Amendment previously, indicated that if we were to adopt the principle of a Statutory Instrument it would involve a Prayer, and that Members generally resented Prayers, probably because they come on so late in the evening, which does not give an opportunity for a full and frank discussion. As I understand it, the Amendment would not involve a Prayer but would involve an affirmative Resolution. The Government can bring such a matter forward at any time, even at 3.30 p.m. if they so desire.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also indicated, in speaking against the Amendment, that it has been the custom to deal with financial matters by means of Acts of Parliament and not by means of Statutory Instruments. I could refer the right hon. Gentleman to numerous occasions on which the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture have dealt with financial questions by means of a Statutory Instrument.

It seems to us that the method proposed in the Amendment is the more effective and more tidy method of dealing with the matter. It will give the maximum Parliamentary control as well as Departmental control, and that is what the Public Accounts Committee sought when it made the recommendation. By the adoption of the Amendment, ample and adequate opportunity to debate the matter will also be given. In view of what my right hon. Friend has indicated, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will now advance some other and better reason than we have yet heard for not accepting the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)

The right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks talked about this being a mere routine matter, but I cannot accept that the granting by this House of large sums of money is purely a routine matter. It is something which I believe should be considered seriously, and every opportunity should be given to this House to debate it. The right hon. Gentleman has himself indicated that greater opportunities are afforded when the House proceeds by Bill rather than merely by order.

Mr. Woodburn

May I clear up that point? Is there any greater opportunity of debating a Bill on Second Reading than there is of debating an affirmative order?

Commander Galbraith

There are all the other stages, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, which give further opportunities to the House to consider and to debate the matter. Obviously, therefore, there are greater opportunities for debate and consideration when legislation is adopted. The right hon. Gentleman must have been with very persuasive people when he was serving on the Select Committee, because I have been looking back over the records and I find that Governments of which he was either a Member or which he supported passed nine Acts of a similar nature to this Bill and in each case they insisted that, where there was to be an increase in the amount of money granted, it should be granted by Act of Parliament and not by order. There is this further point, that where the expenditure of large sums of fresh money is concerned, the Government as a whole and not an individual Minister ought to put the matter forward. In other words, however appropriate orders may be for the administrative functions of a Minister within his own sphere, they are not, in my opinion, appropriate in the financial context.

I have advanced reasons why we should not accept this Amendment, and I have to inform the House that I am unable to accept it on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

There cannot be any hon. Member in any part of the House who has been convinced by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has told us again that it is necessary for the House to deal with these matters by means of a Parliamentary Bill. I put to him in Committee, and I put to him again, that the Government have given to the farming industry about £230 million in the past year. We did not have a Parliamentary Bill this last year to vote any penny of that sum. Some £50 million of that money, which is given in calf subsidies, fertiliser subsidies, ploughing-up grants and so on—all things provided for in the first place by an Act of Parliament—is continued year by year by Statutory Instrument. That is far in excess of the £10 million per annum needed to finance the Scottish Special Housing Association. That Association has been functioning for many years without Parliament having any control over the amount of money advanced.

Up to the end of March last year, a sum of £51 million had been advanced to the Scottish Special Housing Association. The amount of money which it has had advanced to it has been increasing at the rate of about £9 million a year, and, by the end of this financial year, which I believe is tomorrow, it will have had advanced to it about £59 or £60 million. If it goes on increasing its demands upon the Treasury at the present rate; in other words, if it goes on building houses at the rate at which it has been building them up to now—although the building contractors in Scotland have been doing their best to convince the Government of the need to stop the Special Housing Association building houses, so that the profits might go to the private contractors—one year from now, the Association will have had advanced to it at least £69 million or perhaps £70 million.

But, long before that time is reached, the Scottish Special Housing Association will require to acquire additional land and to make advance preparations for future building. It will have committed itself to the building of houses for which this House has not given any financial authority, and that would seem to us to be wrong.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was saying that, before that time is reached and before it can be given additional financial responsibility beyond the £75 million which has been written into this Clause, the Government will require to bring forward another Parliamentary Bill, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained to us that, although the Public Accounts Committee recommended to us in 1952–53 that it was desirable that there should be more Parliamentary control over the amounts of money issued to the Scottish Special Housing Association, the Government could not find an appropriate legislative vehicle to give effect to that recommendation until now. If they could not between 1952 and 1955 find a convenient vehicle to provide for this effective Parliamentary control, and if we have to wait as long again, of course, by that time the Scottish Special Housing Association will be out of business.

It is no defence for the Government to say that these matters should be put into a Parliamentary Bill so that they may be properly discussed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said, this ceiling figure of £75 million was written into a Bill dealing in the main with requisitioned houses, which was sent upstairs to a Standing Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary did not even have one single Scottish Conservative Member on that Standing Committee; yet he says that all these things ought to receive detailed discussion by Members of Parliament.

The Bill went to a Committee on which no single Scottish Government supporter was sitting, though there were, I think fortunately—although it may be presumptuous to say so—two Scottish Opposition hon. Members on that Committee. We had a little discussion, and one hopelessly inadequate speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We could have had far more discussion on this matter if it were dealt with in the form of a Statutory Instrument than if it was dealt with in the way in which it has been dealt with on this occasion.

If it was right to shove this provision into the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill this time, and if in another 12 months or less, it is necessary to get fresh House of Commons authority for an advance to the Scottish Special Housing Association, goodness knows into which Bill we shall put it. We have some reason to believe that we may have a Slaughterhouses Bill next year. [Interruption.]An hon. Friend of mine says " Write it into the Slaughterhouses Bill." Someone else suggests that we might get it in the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, the so-called " Horror Comics Bill," which we hope will have completed its stages before an increased sum is necessary, so that there will not be an amending Bill next year.

In any case, there is no likelihood—perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could tell us—of our having a new Scottish Housing Bill. It is quite clear that the last Bill which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would want to see containing these provisions is another Scottish Housing Bill, because we had one last year. However, that was not a convenient legislative vehicle in which to deal with the matter because, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now told us, this has been the first convenient opportunity. That means that the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill of last year was not a convenient legislative vehicle in which to deal with the matter.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

It was a Scottish Bill.

Mr. Fraser

It was a Bill which attracted the attention of Scottish Members of Parliament. We gave detailed consideration to it, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had a very difficult and hard time in Committee. He lost all the arguments but he won all the votes. If he counted only the Scottish votes in the Committee he lost the vote, because the Opposition won by two to one. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this is not a purely Scottish matter but a House of Commons matter. Looking at it from another point of view, the Government won the vote in total by 20 to 19, and they were saved by the votes of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, to which the Bill does not apply anyway.

It is clear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself thought during the Second Reading on 15th February not only that this was a matter which should be dealt with by Statutory Instrument but that it would be dealt with by Statutory Instrument. I referred in Committee to his speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can look it up, but surely he knows what he said. He said he thought it was a matter which should be dealt with by a Statutory Instrument. However, he is one of those Ministers who think that if the Opposition put an Amendment on the Order Paper it is the duty of the Government to oppose the Opposition and that they must never take the advice of the Opposition.

I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would take a leaf out of the book of his hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary who has just been handling the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, who told us only last night, as did the Secretary of State himself, that the Bill had been much improved because the Government had accepted Amendments moved by the Opposition. I understand from my hon. Friends from south of the border, who know the Measure well, that this is a bad Bill in any case. However, this Clause would most definitely be improved if our Amendment were accepted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that that is so, but he has been given authority by the Secretary of State to handle this matter and he has made up his mind that, because the Amendment had been moved by the Opposition, there is something evil in it and it ought to be resisted. Yet it is all so straightforward and plain.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the suggestion is a worthwhile one. Every hon. Member who has listened to the discussion knows that the suggestion is a sensible one. It is in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation; it gives effect to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee; it is in accordance with precedent; and it is in accord with common sense. I implore the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for once to do the right thing, and take the advice of the Opposition.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

I should like to add one or two words, because we discussed the matter in the Public Accounts Committee for a considerable time. That Committee makes many recommendations, but it never suggested that in exercising control over the sum voted to the Scottish Special Housing Association the Government should have to go to the trouble of introducing a Bill every time some money had to be found for that purpose. What it did say was that it was rather an odd arrangement that money should be spent without either the Treasury or the House exercising any control over the amount spent in any one year.

The Public Accounts Committee asked only that before this happened the House should have some say in the matter. That was all it asked, and that was all it asked from the Treasury itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot produce one iota of evidence to say that the Public Accounts Committee demanded that an Act of Parliament should be passed to provide money for housing purposes on behalf of the Scottish Special Housing Association. He must not seek to foist responsibility for the Government's action on to the Public Accounts Committee. I think that that clears up that point.

The second point, which has been admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and was also put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) during the Committee stage, was this: we do not believe that there is a single Member on either side of the House who believes that this is the right way to deal with the matter which is peculiar to Scotland, which affects only an association which is in Scotland and in no other part of the country, who believes that that type of thing should be included at the tail end of a Bill which is applicable to England in the main and is certainly not applicable to Ireland. This is a strange way to enact Scottish legislation.

I do not think on either of those counts that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any argument at all. I appeal to him to reconsider the matter even at this late stage. It does not mean that he will be regarded as weak if he agrees to reconsider the issue. It is a purely Scottish issue, and I hope that even at this late stage he will say that he will look at it again and agree that there may be something in the Amendment. It is not too late for him to do so. and I am certain that if he did he would increase his stature in the eyes of Members on both sides of the House:

Mr. Woodburn

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is prepared to consider it? It is a reasonable Amendment. We do not necessarily want to force a Division; we would rather he said he would reconsider the matter.

Commander Galbraith

I am not in a position to reconsider the matter. It has

Division No. 58] AYES [9.24 p.m.
Adams, Richard Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Manuel, A. C.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Mason, Roy
Awbery, S. S. Hale, Leslie Mayhew, C. P.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Messer, Sir F.
Benson, G. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Mitchison, C. R.
Beswick, F. Hannan, W. Moody, A. S.
Bing, G. H. C, Hargreaves, A. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Blackburn, F. Hastings, S. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Blenkinsop, A. Hayman, F. H. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Blyton, W. R. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Moyle, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Herbison, Miss M. Nally, W.
Bowles, F. G. Hobson, C. R. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Holman, P. Oldfield, W. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Houghton, Douglas Oliver, C. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. O. Hoy, J. H. Oswald, T.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hubbard, T. F. Paget, R. T.
Burke, W. A. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Palmer, A. M. F.
Callaghan, L. J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pannell, Charles
Champion, A. J. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pargiter, G. A.
Clunie, J. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Parker, J.
Collick, P. H. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Paton, J.
Collins, V. J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Popplewell, E.
Cove, W. G. Janner, B. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Probert, A. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Johnson, James (Rugby) Proctor, W. T.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pryde, D. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Rhodes, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, James (Wrexham) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Deer, G. Keenan, W. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Delargy, H. J. Kenyon, C. Ross, William
Dodds, N. N. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Donnelly, D. L. King, Dr. H. M. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Kinley, J. Short, E. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lawson, G. M. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Lewis, Arthur Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Fernyhough, E. Lindgren, G. S. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Finch, H. J. Logan, D. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) McInnes, J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Foot, M. M. McKay, John (Wallsend) Sparks, J. A.
Forman, J. C. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Steele, T.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Gibson, C. W. Mainwaring, W. H. Swingler, S. T.
Glanville, James Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Grey, C. F. Mann, Mrs. Jean Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

been very seriously considered. In any case, I will correct the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who said that this was purely a Scottish matter. Grants of funds are not purely Scottish matters. The granting of funds in any connection is a matter for the House of Commons, and the two hon.. Gentlemen ought to know that. I will not reconsider the matter. It has already been considered, and I have given the Government's answer to the House. I would further say that it is not proper that a change such as is proposed should be made on Amendments of this nature.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 201.

Thornton, E. West, D. G. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Timmons, J. Wheeldon, W. E. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, 8.)
Turner-Samuels, M. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) Willis, E. G.
Ungood-Thomas, Sir Lynn Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Viant, S. P. Wilkins, W. A. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wallace, H. W. Willey, Frederick Yates, V. F.
Watkins, T. E. Williams, David (Neath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen
Weitzman, D. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Aitken, W. T. Hay, John Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Alport, C. J. M. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Nugent, G. R. H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Oakshott, H. D.
Armstrong, C. W. Heath, Edward Odey, G. W.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Higgs, J. M. C. O'Neill, Hen. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.) Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Baldwin, A. E. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Barlow, Sir John Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Page, R. G.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hirst, Geoffrey Perkins, Sir Robert
Bell, Ronald (Bunks, S.) Holland-Martin, C. J. Peyton, J. W. W.
Bennett, Sir William (Woodside) Holt, A. F. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bishop, F. P. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Powell, J. Enoch
Black, C. W. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Bossom, Sir A. C. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Profumo, J. D.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J. Raikes, Sir Victor
Boyle, Sir Edward Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'h'gh,W.) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Ridsdale, J. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Hylton-Foster. Sir H. B. H. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Brooman-White, R. C. Iremonger, T. L. Robertson, Sir David
Browne, Jack (Govan) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Roper, Sir Harold
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Jennings, Sir Roland Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bullard, D. G. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Russell, R. S.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Jones, A. (Hall Green) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Campbell, Sir David Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Carr, Robert Kerby, Capt. H. B. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Cary, Sir Robert Kerr, H. W. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Channon, H. Lambert, Hon. G. Scott, Sir Donald
Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead) Lambton, Viscount Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesb'rgh, W.)
Cole, Norman Langford-Holt, J. A. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Spearman, A. C. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Speir, R. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C. Linstead, Sir H. N. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. Llewellyn, D. T. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Lloyd-George, Mal. Rt. Hon. G. Stevens, Geoffrey
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess Longden, Gilbert Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)
Deedes, W. F. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Studholme, H. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Donner, Sir P. W. McCallum, Major D. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Drewe, Sir C. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Duthie, W. S. McKibbin, A. J. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Fell, A. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Finlay, Graeme McLean, Neil (Inverness) Touche, Sir Gordon
Fisher, Nigel Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Wade, D. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Wall, Major Patrick
Garner-Evans, E. H. Markham, Major Sir Frank Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Glover, D. Marlowe, A. A. H. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Marples, A. E. Wellwood, W.
Gower, H. R. Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Graham, Sir Fergus Maude, Angus Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Gresham Cooke, R. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Medlicott, Sir Frank Wills, G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Wood, Hon. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Nabarro, G. D. N. Woollam, John Victor
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Neave, Airey TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Mr. Kaberry and
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Mr. Edward Wakefield.