HC Deb 20 December 1956 vol 562 cc1505-20

Question again proposed.

Mr. Wigg

Mr. Speaker, I was arguing that this House should not adjourn, but that the Government should consider the setting up of either a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, or, failing that, that the House should stay in session until we have established the facts which led up to the Government presenting their ultimatum to Israel and to Egypt. I think that I have established, out of the mouth of the Minister of Defence, that the Government knew of the start of the Israeli operation at 4 p.m. on 26th October.

I think that I have also established that one of the Prime Minister's colleagues, namely, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, would never have made the statement that he did make had he himself been aware that there was ample time for the Government to have consulted the heads of the Dominion Governments and, indeed, President Eisenhower himself.

The other point which I have sought to establish, and which I think that the House should examine with very great care—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must point out that on a Motion of this sort, which is a Motion to adjourn until a definite day, it is quite allowable and proper to urge that the House should not adjourn to that date because certain subjects are of considerable importance. On the other hand, it is not in order to go into those subjects in any detail. They can be advanced only as reasons for not adjourning. It seems to me, from the little that I have been privileged to hear of the hon. Member's speech, that he is going into this matter in some detail, which would not be in order.

Mr. Wigg

I was going on to refer to the argument of the hon. Member for Hendon, North that, had the Government had foreknowledge, the armoured fighting vehicles would have gone there before. He also argued, from what M. Pineau said, that the charge of collusion could not be true because, if it had been true, there would have been much more detail to the operation. The point I was making was that there ought to be an inquiry, and that the House should not adjourn until the Government either agree to an inquiry or, failing that, that the House itself should conduct an inquiry into the Government's foreknowledge.

The Prime Minister himself, in the course of his reply, made great play of the situation vis-à-vis Jordan, but what the Prime Minister failed to tell the House was that, in fact, the Government took one course of action about Jordan and another about Egypt. What was the ultimatum designed to do? Not to separate Israel and Egypt, but, at all costs, to get back on the Canal. I argue that there are reasons why the Government should set up an inquiry, and why the House itself should do the job if the Government will not.

The first is on the issue of foreknowledge—not collusion. I have never made the charge of collusion. I questioned the Prime Minister on the setting up of a Select Committee. I wrote a letter to The Times, and I have questioned the Minister of Defence, all the time seeking to establish that the Government knew well in advance the time of this operation, and that the story about the necessity for immediate and speedy action was untrue—

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order. The hon. Member is saying that he does not wish the House to adjourn until the Government have agreed to set up a Royal Commission, or some form of inquiry, into what happened. In his argument, Mr. Speaker, is he not trying to show that, should he be allowed to continue on his present line, such an inquiry will be quite unnecessary, because he already knows the answer?

Mr. Speaker

I think myself that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has sufficiently indicated the importance which this subject bears in his mind, and has expressed his desire that the House should not adjourn without a committee or an inquiry of some sort. I think that that is as far as he is entitled to go.

As I heard the hon. Member's last few sentences, he was arguing the merits of what the Prime Minister said, but that is for another occasion. In case the hon. Member misunderstood me after Question Time, when I said that this was a matter which could be debated on the Adjournment, I did not mean on this Question, but on the general Question, "That this House do now adjourn." It would be in order to raise it on that Question, but out of order to do so on this.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not misunderstand you—I understood perfectly well. If you rule that I have exhausted the reasons on that point, I will now, if I may, continue to give other reasons—of which I have a formidable list, although I do not want to detain the House too long.

I want to turn to another reason for the setting up of a Royal Commission—

Mr. Speaker

The House does not need to hear another reason for the setting up of a Royal Commission. I think that the hon. Member has explained his reasons for that with admirable clarity. What is before the House is whether or not the House should adjourn before a Commission is set up. That point, I think, is made. But if the hon. Member is going to argue the case all over again, I think that that would clearly be an abuse of the rules of the House.

Mr. Crossman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Tht Prime Minister, in the course of arguing why we should adjourn, gave a most detailed account of his views about Jordan and our relations with Jordan. What baffles me is why the Prime Minister is allowed to argue that in support of the case that the House should adjourn, whereas, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) tries to argue on the same subject, he is told that he is out of order. Why is that?

Mr. Speaker

If the Prime Minister had tried to make a detailed case on this subject, he would have been out of order.

Mr. Crossman

He did make one.

Mr. Speaker

What the right hon. Gentleman did was to answer a Question which was put to him at Question Time. Then there was a supplementary question, which he answered. That was at Question Time. It was very different from the Question which is before the House now.

Mr. Healey

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may respectfully say so, I think that you are mistaken—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps I have been in error here. I understand that the Prime Minister did make a statement on the Question, "That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn until Tuesday, 22nd January." [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is so. But I think that it would be more convenient to the House if we could dispose of the definite Question which is before us and then go on the general question of the Adjournment, when all this matter would not place the Chair in an embarrassing position and it would be easier for hon. Members.

Mr. H. A. Price

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was here at the time, may I be permitted to make clear that the statement which the Prime Minister made was in answer to a long string of questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Gaitskell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite correct, as the hon. Member says, that I rose on this Motion to put a series of questions to the Prime Minister, feeling that neither my right hon. Friends nor myself could really agree to the Motion until we had had a statement from him. I cannot say for one moment that the statement satisfied us in any way, but in all fairness I think I should make that plain. For my part, although I realise that a number of my hon. Friends would have preferred to have spoken on this Motion, I could not resist the proposition which you have made, that we should proceed now to the other business which has been set down for today.

Sir Robert Boothby (Aberdeenshire, East)

Further to that point of order. We have now had a partial debate in which a lot of speeches which some of us thought were largely out of order have been made, and a lot of charges have been made from the Opposition benches. They have not been answered in any way at all, because no opportunity has arisen to do so. With all respect, I think it is a very bad thing for the House that a debate of this gravity, upon an issue of this importance, should suddenly arise, quite impromptu, when no one is expecting it, on a Motion that this House should adjourn till 22nd January. Further, what has the question of setting up a committee of inquiry or a Royal Commission got to do with the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker

I think, if I may say so, that the Leader of the Opposition has made a very sensible suggestion which appeals to me. This is a limited Motion. If hon. Members wish to use for a wider debate the Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," that is no concern of mine, but I think it would be more in accordance with our practice if we were to adopt the course which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Wigg

Whatever procedure may be adopted, I think that the statement of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) should not be allowed to pass. He is suggesting that this debate "blew up." The Prime Minister came here and answered a Question—

Mr. Speaker

I think that is irrelevant to the subject.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Mr. Speaker, may I put a point of order to you, in this way? It might very well have been better if this debate had not taken the course that it has taken, or gone on so long. To that extent, I would respectfully make my submission on the same lines as the submission which was made just now. But I want to submit to you that my hon. Friend's conclusion was not, perhaps, quite the right one, for two reasons.

One reason is that when the debate has gone so far on a matter which we all realise is of interest far outside the walls of this House, it would be a little unfortunate if it were left in its present state without any of the ends, as it were, being tied up.

The second point that I would put is that a debate on the Motion "That this House do now adjourn"—the other Motion—would inevitably be a much wider debate than the one on which we are now engaged, where the debate is limited to showing why the anxieties in hon. Members' minds, unless they can be quickly cleared up, or unless a promise of inquiry is made, would make many of us unwilling to go away for four weeks, with these questions being asked all over the world and not answered.

The Prime Minister

May I say a word? I do not want to argue about the actual order of the debate, but I would be sorry if I could not answer some of the questions that have been put to me. I will be as brief and as categorical as I can.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sure that we all warmly welcome the proposal of the Prime Minister that he should speak again, and would be happy if you permitted him to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact, that I have been here since the beginning of business today? I have risen repeatedly for the purpose of asking a question, and putting to the Prime Minister something that has not been put to him before in any of the debates on the Suez position. Can you tell me how it is possible for a woman Member who is interested in this matter—and I happen to be the only woman Member in the House at the moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is not properly in the Chamber. She has only just come in. [An HON. MEMBER: "My right hon. Friend is here."] I am sorry; I did not see the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) on the opposite side of the House. I want to know how it is possible for us, when there is so much criticism of women Members not taking part in important foreign affairs debates, to catch your eye to ask a question on important matters of this sort, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot answer that in advance. I have not had an opportunity of observing the hon. Lady yet. Perhaps I shall have that chance later on.

Mrs. Braddock

I have repeatedly, stood up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

The debate has drifted somewhat. My only desire is to serve the House as well as I can. I have the feeling that as the debate has taken a course of which I was unaware, because I was out of the Chamber for a moment, it would be better to finish it in an orderly fashion. I had the pleasure of hearing only a part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but in the part that I did hear, if I may judge the whole from the part, he was going into a lot of matters of detail to which I felt it my duty to draw his attention. If a lot of things have been said, the fair thing seems to be that something should be said in answer to some of the questions that have been put, but I hope that the House will then proceed to its next business.

May I say to the House that what is really in my mind, and what is on my conscience, is that a great number of hon. Members have written to me asking if they may speak on the economic matters which affect their constituents, and I see the time slipping by. That is what lends wings to my desire to bring this debate to a speedy and decorous conclusion.

The Prime Minister

rose—

Mrs. Braddock

Before the Prime Minister answers, may I be permitted to put a question which will not take very many moments—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that that lies in the hands of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has still got the Floor of the House and seems anxious to resume his speech.

Mr. Wigg

I do wish to resume my speech, Mr. Speaker, but I do not wish to be too long about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite welcoming that, but they will be disappointed for a short while yet.

The additional reasons why there should be an inquiry, and why the House should not adjourn, are to be found in the actual conduct of the operations themselves. Let me say, quite frankly, that I do not associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). There was evidence here of good planning. The operations were carried out with great restraint and certainly with great gallantry by all arms of the Services which were called upon to undertake them. But, that having been said, there is something else which must be added.

I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) is not present, for I wish to remind the House of what he said on 5th December. Speaking of the operations and of the Government's plans to undertake them, he said: The fact remains that when this crisis came we had no plan, no ships, no aeroplanes, and no men available in sufficient quantities to hit quickly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1307.] In other words, the Government, after having spent £6,000 million at the minimum since they took office, found themselves, on 1st August, with two tank landing ships, no plans, and no transport aircraft.

I suggest that for that reason, if for no other, the Government should undertake an inquiry along the lines of the Royal Commission which was set up to inquire into the operations in Mesopotamia and the Dardenelles—an admirable precedent, because there was on that occasion an inquiry into the inception, origin and conduct of the operations themselves. If that were done in a very limited period of time, the Government would be able to satisfy public opinion not only in this country but in the United States and in the Commonwealth as to the degree of guilt, the degree of prior knowledge that they had, which lays them open to the charge, which is believed universally, that they claimed to stop a fire which they themselves had started.

I do not believe all that. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was absolutely right; with him, I believe that the Government are not villains, but they are synthetic villains; they got caught up in a train of circumstances which was too powerful for them. They then found themselves faced with one small step of decision—and Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive! The villains in this case are, in my judgment, M. Mollet and M. Pineau. They call themselves Socialists. If they are, I am not.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is really going into too much detail here, and I wish to give an opportunity to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) to ask a question. Mrs. Braddock.

Mrs. Braddock

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a question—

Mr. Wigg

I think I have the Floor at the moment, Mr. Speaker; I did not give way. But I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the hon. Member had concluded his speech.

Mr. Wigg

No, Sir. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) wants to ask a question—

Mr. Speaker

I cannot have the hon. Lady's question in the middle of a speech.

Mr. Wigg

I want to conclude my speech and put forward another argument for an inquiry.

Last week, I had the privilege of meeting the Rev. Russell Stevenson, who was flown to Egypt by the United States. He is the chairman of the American Emergency Committee for the relief of Egyptian war victims. He went, with the support of his ambassador, to Port Said. Last week he came to the House and gave me certain figures. They are not only his estimate, but they are the estimate of the American Consul in Port Said, Mr. Anthony Quomo.

He gave the number of killed as certainly not less than 1,000, but it is probably nearer 2,000. He also told me that there are in the Nile Delta a minimum of 60,000 homeless who are now being cared for by the Egyptian Government, and that about 4,000 housing units were destroyed.

I am not prepared to go away for the Christmas holidays, or any other holidays—[An HON. MEMBER: "Then the hon. Gentleman should stay here."]—with this on my conscience. The Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite might ponder this. This country will not get the oil it wants as a result of force. There were always only two policies. We could put a man at every yard along the Suez Canal and at every yard along the pipeline, and we could use force to get the oil. We have failed. If we fail to get it by force, the only thing we are driven back to is getting it by good will.

I mentioned that the Rev. Russell Stevenson was the chairman of an American committee.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman really is going into much too much detail on this.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the House should not adjourn.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that, and I believe that the House now understands that that is the hon. Member's view. I think that he has put it with great force and clarity. I do not want to criticise it as being rather over-elaborated in matters of detail, but, if I were him, I should rest on my laurels now. He has done his cause yeoman service.

Mr. Wigg

I am always prepared to accept the dictate of the Chair on matters of order. But I am not prepared to accept the dictate of the Chair on matters of opinion, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the hon. Member did not mean to criticise what I have had to say. My opinion was not on the merits or otherwise of the hon. Member's argument, but my opinion is one which I am entitled to express, namely, that I think that he is abusing the practice of the House in going into a detailed argument on a Question which is limited. I have said that a reply can be given, because the debate has got into this condition. I hope that the hon. Member will not think I am trying to be unfair to him. That is not the case.

Mr. Wigg

Mr. Speaker, if you direct me that I am out of order, I will resume my seat. If I am in order, I propose to continue. I am as anxious as any hon. Member of the House to preserve all the forms and obey the rules of order; but there are limits to what the Chair can reasonably ask of an hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I propose to make my point.

Earlier, I had argued for an inquiry into the conduct of these operations, into their inception and origin. I am now arguing for something in addition. I am asking the Government to face the consequences of what they have done. The oil of the Middle East is essential to the economic well-being of this country. It can be got only on the basis of good will. I am asking the Minister, as the first act of retribution for what he has done, to admit that he has been wrong and to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Yes, I say the first act of retribution, because if that act of retribution is not made the Government and the country will not get the oil they need.

Somehow or other we must establish a point of contact and a point of confidence with the Arab people. I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, and, provided, of course, that I remain in order, I am going to ask that the Government should use this Christmas time as the time of retribution and understanding. In the world in which we live, force has very limited uses, and we in this country, perhaps above all countries, need to establish our policy on the basis of integrity, understanding, and good will. Whatever the Prime Minister has got to say, I hope that at least he will accept that.

6.9 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

This is the first time I have made any attempt to get into a debate of this sort or to ask a question. My purpose is to ask the Prime Minister to answer or, at any rate, to give me a reasoned explanation of the questions which I am about to put to him. I am very concerned at going home tomorrow and staying away for four weeks with this particular situation in mind.

When he comes to reply, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the actual position is that the Government did know that the Israelis were going to attack Egypt, that they also knew that there was no possibility at all of their attacking Jordan, that they had said to the Government that they were going to start a war with Egypt, gave them information about what they were going to do and requested the Government not to take any action at all: but the Government did take action against the desires of Israel in this matter, jumping the gun as regards the action which Israel had taken and landing us into this situation because the Government desired to take the Suez Canal under their control on account of the action which had been taken by Colonel Nasser?

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether that actually is the position or whether that information is completely untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is."] Some hon. Member over there knows it is untrue. I am asking the Prime Minister, because I desire to know; if he says it is quite untrue, then I shall pursue my investigations to see whether I can prove the accusations and the statements which I have made today.

6.10 p.m.

The Prime Minister

I should like first to deal with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about dates and knowledge in respect of Tel Aviv. In a sense, that will meet also the point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Whatever may or may not have been said in supplementaries in sharp quick answers, the facts are these. They have been said, and I want to make them absolutely clear in relation to dates.

On 26th October, we heard from our representative in Tel Aviv that Israel was mobilising. It was not then known whether it was a partial or total mobilisation. We sent instructions on the next day, 27th October, to our Ambassador at Tel Aviv to make representations to Israel on the matter. It is quite true that he pointed out once again, not for the first time, that if there were an Israeli attack on Jordan, the United Kingdom would be bound to intervene in accordance with the Anglo-Jordan Treaty. That is quite true.

Our Ambassador also urged restraint on Israel in other directions, amongst other reasons because it was quite obvious that if Israel attacked any of the other Arab countries, whichever it might be, there was the possibility of Jordan becoming involved and a difficult situation being created for the United Kingdom. That was quite apart—

Mr. S. Silverman

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

The Prime Minister

I am answering the hon. Gentleman behind the hon. Member, who put some specific questions to me. I have looked out these dates very carefully to make sure that I am getting the matter right. The hon. Member was not even in the House when this was going on.

Mr. Silverman

Yes, I was.

The Prime Minister

I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

That representation was quite apart from the risk of a general war which could have resulted from any such attack.

On 29th October, our Minister in Tel Aviv saw the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs and she assured him that no further hostile move was intended against Jordan—[Interruption.]—that was in the morning. She also said that Israel was not seeking military adventures, and she explained the mobilisation on the ground that Israel had to be prepared against possible attack. That was the position on 29th October.

I want to answer—

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

The Prime Minister

I want to answer that before I give way. I do not know how long Mr. Speaker will allow this debate to continue. I want to answer these questions, which were asked some time ago. I wish to make it clear that there was no joint decision in advance of hostilities about the use of a veto. There was no joint decision about the use of the French Air Force in advance of hostilities.

Mr. Crossman

rose—

The Prime Minister

Let me finish my sentence. I want to say this on the question of foreknowledge, and to say it quite bluntly to the House, that there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt—there was not. But there was something else. There was—we knew it perfectly well—a risk of it, and in the event of the risk of it certain discussions and conversations took place, as, I think, was absolutely right, and as, I think, anybody would do. So far from this being an act of retribution, I would be compelled—and I think my colleagues would agree—if I had the same very disagreeable decisions to take again, to repeat them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Heath) 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 165, Noes 85.

Division No. 32.] AYES [6.16 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Erroll, F. J. Kerr, H. W.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Farey-Jones, F. W. Kimball, M.
Arbuthnot, John Fell, A. Kirk, P. M.
Ashton, H. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lambert, Hon. G.
Atkins, H. E. Freeth, D. K. Lambton, Viscount
Baldwin, A. E. Garner-Evans, E. H. Leather, E. H. C.
Balniel, Lord George, J. C. (Pollok) Leavey, J. A.
Barlow, Sir John Godber, J. B. Leburn, W. G.
Barter, John Gower, H. R. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Green, A. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Gresham Cooke, R. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bishop, F. P. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Body, R. F. Gurden, Harold Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Hall, John (Wycombe) Longden, Gilbert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Harris, Reader (Heston) Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Brooman-White, R. C. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. McAdden, S. J.
Bryan, P. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Burden, F, F. A. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Maddan, Martin
Cary, Sir Robert Hirst, Geoffrey Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Channon, H. Holland-Martin, C. J. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Chichester-Clark, R. Hornby, R. P. Mathew, R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Maude, Angus
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Crouch, R. F. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hurd, A. R. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Cunningham, Knox Hyde, Montgomery Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Dance, J. C. G. Iremonger, T. L. Moore, Sir Thomas
Davidson, Viscountess Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nairn, D. L. S.
Deedes, w. F. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nicholls, Harmar
Doughty, C. J. A. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Drayson, G. B. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Nicolson N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick&L'm'tn) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nugent, G. R. H.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Joseph, Sir Keith O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Keegan, D. Osborne, C.
Page, R. G. Sharples, R. C. Vane, W. M. F.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) Shepherd, William Vickers, Miss J. H.
Partridge, E, Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Vosper, D. F.
Peyton, J. W. W. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M. Soames, Capt. C. Wall, Major Patrick
Powell, J. Enoch Spearman, Sir Alexander Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Prof unto, J. D. Stevens, Geoffrey Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Redmayne, M. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P. Storey, S. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Renton, D. L. M. Studholme, Sir Henry Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, J. E. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Robertson, Sir David Temple, J. M.
Rodgers, john (Sevenoaks) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Russell, R. S. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P. Mr. Oaksbott and Mr. Barber.
NOES
Beswick, F. Hayman, F. H. Moyle, A.
Blackburn, F. Healey, Denis Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S. W.) Herbison, Miss M. Oliver, G. H.
Bowles, F. C. Hobson, C. R. Oram, A. E.
Boyd, T. C. Holman, P, Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Holmes, Horace Parker, J.
Brookway, A. F. Holt, A. F. Peart, T. F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Houghton, Douglas Plummer, Sir Leslie
Callaghan, L. J. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Proctor, W. T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Rankin, John
Crossman, R. H. S. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rhodes, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Irving, S. (Dartford) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Ross, William
Delargy, H. J. Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dodds, N. N. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Skeffington, A. M.
Donnelly, D. L. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Snow, J. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Sparks, J. A.
Edelman, M. Kenyon, C. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) King, Dr. H. M. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lawson, G. M. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Lindgren, G. S. Wigg, George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Willey, Frederick
Gibson, C. w. MacColl, J. E. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Greenwood, Anthony Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mann, Mrs. Jean Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Grimond, J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mason, Roy Zilliacus, K.
Hamilton, W. W. Mellish, R. J.
Hastings, S. Mitchison, G. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Deer

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday. 22nd January.