HC Deb 24 October 1956 vol 558 cc651-65

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end to insert : then, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section.

Mr. Speaker

This Amendment, which is the first on the Notice Paper to be selected, seems to be a paving Amendment to that which succeeds it, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert a new subsection (5). Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) can deal with them both together.

Mr. Robinson

These Amendments are similar to an Amendment which I moved in Committee, except that that Amendment went a good deal further. It was supported on all sides of the Committee and I agreed to withdraw it with some reluctance only because of an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The assurance was rather more than the conventional promise that the Government would look into the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said: I am hopeful of being able to evolve a suitable Amendment which will help the purpose which hon. Members have in mind and, at the same time, safeguard the other consideration which I think the Committee feels also to be of some importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee B, 19th June. 1956 ; c. 41.] I was rather surprised and somewhat disappointed to find nothing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Notice Paper for this stage of the Bill to deal with this point.

I do not want to go at any length over the arguments I used in the Committee and I will summarise as briefly as I can what I then said. The first point is that few people outside the legal profession appreciate that a letter, even a business letter, is in law a literary work and that, as the law stands, copyright in a letter subsists indefinitely so long as that letter remains unpublished. Few people appreciate that the copyright belongs to the person who wrote the letter and not to the person who owns and has physical possession of it.

These facts make matters extremely difficult for people who try to write biographies. It becomes almost impossible for them to do what they would wish to do and to observe the letter of the law. If they wish to reproduce letters written by or to the subject of their biographies they have to trace not only the owners of the letters, which is usually easy enough, but the heirs and assigns of the writers, which is usually difficult and often impossible.

A biographer is, therefore, faced with two alternatives. One is to comply with the law and so to produce a less interesting and attractive book than he might otherwise do, and the other is to do what he wants to do and to take a chance with the law. I think I am right in saying that, normally, a biographer does the latter and takes a chance, if he knows what the law is. Usually, he is quite ignorant of the provisions of the law, and goes to the owners of the letters and asks for permission to reproduce them. That permission is almost always generously given by the owners, who believe that they are in a position to give that permission. This law is completely misunderstood over a wide field by people most closely affected by it; it is a law which is broken every day of the week with impunity without any injury being done to anybody. That alone is a strong argument for amending the law.

I go further and say that there is very little logic behind the law as it stands. The purpose of copyright is to create and to protect a property right in a work of art or a literary work. People do not normally write letters to sell in the way that they write books, paint pictures or compose symphonies. By removing letters from the provisions of copyright we would deprive hardly anybody of a property right. My Amendment does not go nearly as far as that, because I am merely seeking to put a term to copyright in unpublished letters. My suggestion is that copyright should subsist for fifty years after the death of the writer of the letter. or for a hundred years after the writing of the letter, whichever is later.

In Committee, only one argument against my proposal was produced by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was that if we freed letters from copyright fifty years after the death of the writers there was a serious risk of offending the susceptibilities of relatives of the writers or of third parties who might be mentioned in the letters. I can only repeat what I said then, that I do not think the susceptibilities of the third parties are a proper subject of copyright and that the law of copyright ought not to concern itself with such matters. In that view I was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and other members of the Committee.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the argument. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that I have gone as far as I can to meet it in the change I have made in the Amendments on the Paper. I have put in the second period of a hundred years from the writing of the letter. Except in the case of persons of extreme longevity, that should obviate the risk of any susceptibilities of living persons being touched when letters go out of copyright. The other advantage of the two alternative periods is that they bring the Amendments into line with Clause 7 (6), which does much the same with unpublished literary works in library and public archives.

By preserving the bare principle of the Amendment I moved in Committee I have done my very best to meet the objections that have been brought forward. I hope that on this occasion the Government, although they did not see fit to put their own Amendment on the Paper, will have no difficulty in supporting my Amendments.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde (Belfast, North)

I must declare a small interest in these Amendments. I have already declared it when the Bill was in Committee. It is the interest of a person who, from time to time, produces biographies about the famous and not so famous figures of the past. Like the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary had been unable to evolve a Government Amendment to satisfy the views which had been put forward by the hon. Member and which were held by those who supported him in Committee.

4.0 p.m.

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary sympathises with this Amendment, even though he has not been able to put forward an Amendment in the name of either the President of the Board of Trade or himself, because, if I may say so with respect, he is a distinguished biographer. I am sure the House will share with me regret that his present arduous duties prevent him from continuing to produce the biographies which have delighted us in the past.

The position of the biographer and research worker is difficult in the sense in which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North indicated. The fact that copyright continues indefinitely in an unpublished letter as time goes on makes the position difficult, particularly where the letters, under the custom which is increasing today, have been deposited in libraries and other public institutions. The position is not satisfactory because the research worker may take a chance and the law is then broken. He may take a chance and decide to publish a letter after having failed to trace the owner of the copyright, or he may decide that the risk is too great and leave out of his book what might be quite an interesting document.

On the question of susceptibilities of third parties, there is something to be said for the fact that it is undesirable to give pain to living persons, but of course, the copyright extends only to the words in the letter. It does not extend to the information contained in the letter. Anyone into whose possession the letter may have come is quite at liberty to make use of the information it contains, provided that in his biography he does not embody the actual words which have been used by the writer of the letter.

In the evidence which was given before the Board of Trade committee which considered the whole question of copyright, such learned and important institutions as the British Museum, the Libraries' Association and the Bodleian Library at Oxford all expressed the view that there should be some limitation set upon the term of copyright in unpublished writing. It seems to me that the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is a reasonable one. It is not so drastic as the proposal he put forward in Committee. I hope it will commend itself to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I hope very much indeed that the Government will accept this Amendment. I, too, was disappointed that after his kind words in Committee—which were very helpful—the Parliamentary Secretary did not put forward an Amendment in his name or the name of his right hon. Friend. I suppose that that was through inadvertence or pressure of work.

There can be very little objection to this proposal. I can see that in its original form there was a difficulty, but now that a hundred years is included as the shortest period between the writing of the letter and the publication thereof, I cannot see how susceptibilities are going to be affected to any degree which could be balanced in the scales against the value of an historical record. There is surely an obligation towards historic truth as well as towards susceptibilities of persons who could not have been living at the time when the letter was written. The argument on that side seems very slight.

I am in the position, with my brother, of being the owner of copyright in certain letters. Our great difficulty is that some of those letters have been destroyed without the consent of the copyright owner, because they have been in other hands. Letters written by my father to the late Marquess of Lothian have been destroyed. One is put into great difficulty over this whole matter of letters because of divided interests. The point with which we are dealing, which is strictly that of copyright, is, I should have thought, very adequately met by the Amendment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, this Amendment would bring the Bill into line with provisions made, for which we are very grateful, about letters deposited in libraries and archives. This would bring into a similar position letters which, possibly quite fortuitously, remain in private hands. I cannot see that we would be doing injury to anybody by agreeing to this Amendment. On the contrary, I think that we should be taking a step towards the establishment of truth in historic writing. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith)

This Amendment has been moved moderately and attractively by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), as a similar Amendment was moved in Committee. It has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). The common theme in their speeches was that of disappointment that there is no Government Amendment on the Notice Paper to meet this point. I certainly do not deviate from that common theme, as I share the disappointment that it has not been possible to put down an Amendment on behalf of the Government to meet this position.

This is a difficult problem and I regret that it has been found to be an intractable problem in seeking to achieve the balance which, as I indicated in Committee, is the governing consideration in this Bill. It is, of course, true, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, that I gave a very sympathetic undertaking to do what I could in this matter. That I have done, although, unhappily, unsuccessfully, but not from any lack of good will. As I said then, I was attracted to the idea.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North has been kind enough to refer to my excursions into the biographical field—necessarily less distinguished than his own—which I think would acquit me of any prejudice against the subject matter of this Amendment. I am the more disappointed because the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has shown good will by modifying the effect of his previous Amendment so as to lengthen the period by making it the later of two dates—fifty years from the death of the author, or a hundred years from the date of the writing of the letter.

On the issue of pain and susceptibility to third parties and descendants, I do not think that I can add more to what was said at an earlier stage, except that, in my view, although the extension of the period does, of course, limit the danger, it does not altogether remove it.

I should like to refer to one or two other very practical difficulties which have occurred to us in the course of our sympathetic examination of this problem in the light of the undertaking I gave. In the first place, there are, of course, very material difficulties of definition. For example, this Amendment deals with letters. Is a memorandum written by one person to another a letter for these purposes or not? I do not know. Again, is something enclosed in a letter part of that letter? Again, I do not know.

Take the case of someone who encloses the manuscript of a short play. Is that covered by the terms of this Amendment or not? Perhaps a better case would be if someone wrote to a friend and, within the text of the letter, embodied a poem, maybe a sonnet of 14 lines. That, clearly, would come within the definition of a letter within this Amendment, but I should think that, equally clearly, it could be regarded as a work in which copyright ought to exist.

In addition to these practical difficulties of definition, there is another consideration which is important and which has not been mentioned today, although I believe that it was in the mind of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) when we previously discussed the matter It is the position of publishers. I think the House will agree that it is in the public interest that publishers should be able to arrange for appropriate publication of hitherto unpublished copyright material free from the risk that competitors could, under the provisions of an Amendment such as this, immediately copy the results of their work, publish cheap editions and thereby prevent them from getting the reasonable rewards of their labours.

Let me take a practical example to illustrate that. Let us take the example, to which reference was made in the earlier stage, of the Boswell Papers and the publications ensuing therefrom. Take the case of Boswell's London Journal. Had that been written not in the form of a journal but in the form, for example, of letters to Boswell's Edinburgh friends, Johnston and Temple, as it very well might have been, under the Amendment there would have been no copyright in those letters at the time when they were published, and the admirable edition which has given pleasure to so many might very well not have seen the light of day at all, because without that measure of protection it would not have been a commercial proposition.

Perhaps an even stronger example from the same field, which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, was the case of the publication known as "Boswell in Holland." The House may record that the journal for Boswell's stay in Holland in the years 1763 to 1764 was lost. He-entrusted it to an army officer to take back to England, but it was never seen again. Therefore, the actual publication, instead of incorporating the missing journal, is made up of a most ingenious amalgamation of Boswell's daily memoranda, written as exhortations to himself for his conduct the following day, with all the letters which have been discovered.

Perhaps I might refer to what is said in the introduction to that admirable work by Professor Pottle: The volume that follows is for the greater part a substitute for the lost journal, made by fitting together in chronological sequence selections from these miscellaneous papers. As a sequel the reader is then given the entire correspondence between Boswell and the most remarkable person he met in Holland: Isabella van Tuyll. … This correspondence, which began just as he was leaving Holland and continued intermittently for the next four years, may safely be called one of the oddest series of love letters ever written. On that point, it is quite impossible, the interweaving of the letters with the other material being such, to have two different laws of copyright in regard to them. The House must face the position that all such works as that would be in jeopardy from the point of view of commercial publication in the admirable form that they have, in fact, taken if there was no copyright protection. I cannot resist the conclusion that the practical effects of the Amendment might be to introduce confusion detrimental to publication of works of literary and historic interest.

We have, I think the House will acknowledge, done our best in the Bill to help this problem within the limits of what we conceive to be practicable. People in possession of ancient letters of interest can, if they think the contents unobjectionable and proper to be made public without giving offence, deposit them in public archives, and, in those circumstances, Clause 7, subsections (6) to (9), of the Bill would apply and those letters could be suitably copied and published.

4.15 p.m.

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East referred to the destruction of certain letters written by her eminent father. I would ask her, however, to take account of the point that one would run the risk of much greater destruction of letters if one amended the law so as to withdraw the copyright protection altogether from them after a given period. We should, in fact, have less chance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is for the obvious reason that if people think that letters, if preserved, will fall into the public domain willy-nilly after a certain specified period, they will in many cases take the advice that was given by Admiral Fisher in all his letters, and burn them on receipt.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how people are helped by the fact that, as the law now stands, they can freely publish a paraphrase or the actual contents of a letter?

Mr. Walker-Smith

The hon. Lady must bear in mind the fact that it is not the same to publish a paraphrase as to publish the document. A cynical reading public will never take the same account of an admitted paraphrase as it will of an authenticated original.

Mr. K. Robinson

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the main protection for non-publication of letters lies in the physical ownership of them? If the person who has physical possession of them does not let anybody else see them, they will not be published. That situation is not changed in any way by the Amendment. If somebody has a mind to destroy letters because he thinks they will be going to the public domain, equally he does not know into what hands they will get with the copyright law as it is at the moment, and he has no protection against their publication in the future even with the existing copyright law.

Mr. Walker-Smith

It is a matter of degree. Such a person is under some temptation to destroy them as it is. He would be under a greater temptation to destroy them in the circumstances of the Amendment.

Where there is a difficult and intracttable problem such as this in which there is such a pull of interest and sentiment in both directions, I think we must consider as our guiding light, the general principle in the matter of copyright, which is, after all, that it is the copyright owner who should always have the right to decide if and at what time any work should be published. Many of the letters which are the subject-matter of the Amendment are documents which are, of their very nature, probably the least likely to have been intended by the author for publication.

In view of the very many and practical difficulties involved, it is not possible to recommend the House to deviate from that general principle and accept the Amendment. I say that with great and genuine regret—I hope the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will believe me—because I started from a position of real sympathy with what he sought to do, and I tried very hard to ascertain whether it was possible to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

I hope that the House will forgive me for a few moments if I break into this magic circle of biographers and copyright owners to add my expression of disappointment to the expressions which have been voiced from both sides of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary said he hoped we would acquit him of prejudice because he himself was a biographer. We gladly acquit him of prejudice. On the other hand, it may be that his own Ministerial future is so rosy that he is not likely to have very much time for biography writing in the future, in which case we shall all congratulate him; but, at the same time, it might make him a little less sensitive to the claims of biographers than would otherwise be the case.

We discussed the matter in Standing Committee for a considerable time. I should have thought that the change made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in the present Amendment really went as far as one ought to go. My hon. Friend now proposes that copyright shall last for fifty years after the death of the writer or a hundred years after the end of the year in which the letter was written. That is a very considerable concession which my hon. Friend has made in the meantime, and I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to accept it.

When we discussed this matter in Committee we were all impressed by the point—and this was the main point that the Parliamentary Secretary made at that time—that the publication of letters at an earlier date might cause a great deal of embarrassment and possibly pain to the relatives of the person who had written the letters or even the person who had received them. That is perhaps the main objection that still exists, but surely the greater part of that objection was removed by what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) said a few minutes ago, namely, that anybody is entitled, if he has access to those letters, to make use of the information that is contained in them but is precluded from publishing them in the form in which they were written.

I do not think we ought to exaggerate the difficulties or the embarrassments which would be caused if this Amendment were accepted, as I hope it will be. After all, we are trying in this Bill to protect the rights of the public. The public has the right of access to knowledge of these documents, and I think that biographers have the right of access to letters and other documents of this kind.

The Parliamentary Secretary now tells us about the difficulties of definition. He is not sure whether a memorandum constitutes a letter or whether an enclosure does. He raised the point about cheap editions, which was touched on in Committee, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary has failed in his duty to the House, and, indeed, in the undertaking that he gave to the Standing Committee.

It was on 19th June that we discussed this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has reminded us of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion, and I would have thought that it was not beyond the ingenuity of the Board of Trade and of Parliamentary draftsmen in the intervening four months to have been able to find a form of words which would have removed the objections which are apparent today in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind.

I feel under some sense of responsibility to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North because, having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, I suggested to my hon. Friend that it would be right for him to withdraw his Amendment at that stage because of the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary had given. I am extremely disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been more ingenious in the meantime and that he does not feel able to go rather further towards meeting us, especially in view of the very conciliatory proposal which my hon. Friend has made.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that he must persist in his Amendment and that we shall have the support in the Division Lobby of the hon. Member for Belfast, North and other conscientious and public-spirited Members on the other side of the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 220.

Division No. 282.] AYES [4.24 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Burke, W. A. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Burton, Miss F. E. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Anderson, Frank Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Deer, G.
Awbery, S. S. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) de Freitas, Geoffrey
Bacon, Miss Alice Callaghan, L. J. Delargy, H. J.
Balfour, A. Carmichael, J. Dodds, N. N.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Donnelly, D. L.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Champion, A. J. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Benson, G. Chetwynd, G. R. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Beswick, F. Clunie, J. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Coldrick, W. Edwards, W, J. (Stepney)
Blackburn, F. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Blenkinsop, A. Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Boardman, H. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Fernyhough, E.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Cove, W. G. Finch, H. J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fletcher, Eric
Bowles, F. G. Cullen, Mrs. A. Forman, J. C.
Boyd, T. C. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Brockway, A. F. Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Gibson, C. W. Mahon, Simon Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Skeffington, A. M.
Greenwood, Anthony Mann, Mrs. Jean Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mason, Roy Snow, J. W.
Grey, C. F. Mayhew, C. P. Sparks, J. A.
Hamilton, W. W. Mellish, R. J. Steele, T.
Hannan, W. Mikardo, Ian Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Mitchison, G. R. Stones, W. (Consett)
Hastings, S. Monslow, W. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Healey, Denis Moody, A. S. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Herbison, Miss M. Mort, D. L. Swingler, S. T.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Moss, R. Sylvester, G, O.
Hobson, C. R. Moyle, A. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Holman, P. Mulley, F. W. Thornton, E.
Holmes, Horace Oliver, G. H. Timmons, J.
Houghton, Douglas Oram, A. E. Turner-Samuels, M.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Oswald, T. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Owen, W. J. Usborne, H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Padley, W. E. Viant, S. P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Wade, D. W.
Hunter, A. E. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Warbey, W. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Watkins, T. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Parker, J. Weitzman, D.
Irving, S. (Dartford) Parkin, B. T. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pearson, A. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Janner, B. Pentland, N. Wheeldon, W. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Plummer, Sir Leslie White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Probert, A. R. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Proctor, W. T. Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pryde, D. J. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Randall, H. E. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
King, Dr. H. M. Rankin, John Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Redhead, E. C. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Reeves, J. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Lewis, Arthur Reid, William Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lindgren, G. S. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Winterbottom, Richard
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Woof, R. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
MacColl, J. E. Ross, William Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
McGhee, H. G. Royle, C.
McInnes, J. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McKay, John (Wallsend) Shurmer, P. L. E. Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.
McLeavy, Frank Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cole, Norman Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Alport, C. J. M. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gurden, Harold
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Arbuthnot, John Crouch, R. F. Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Armstrong, C. W. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Ashton, H. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Atkins, H. E. Dance, J. C. G. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Baldwin, A. E. D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Banks, Col. C. Digby, Simon Wingfield Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Barber, Anthony Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Barter, John Doughty, C. J. A. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Drayson, G. B. Hesketh, R. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) du Cann, E. D. L. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&L'm'tn) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hirst, Geoffrey
Bidgood, J. C. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hornby, R. P.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Errington, Sir Eric Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bishop, F. P. Farey-Jones, F. W. Horobin, Sir Ian
Body, R. F. Fell, A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Boyle, Sir Edward Fisher, Nigel Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Braine, B. R. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Hulbert, Sir Norman
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Freeth, D. K. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Bryan, P. Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Garner-Evans, E. H. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. George, J. C. (Pollok) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Carr, Robert Gough, C. F. H. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Cary, Sir Robert Grant, W. (Woodside) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Channon, H. Green, A. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Chichester-Clark, R. Gresham Cooke, R. Joseph, Sir Keith
Keegan, D. Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Soames, Capt. C.
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Speir, R. M.
Kerr, H. W. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Kershaw, J. A. Nabarro, G. D. N. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kimball, M. Nairn, D. L. S. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Lagden, G. W. Neave, Airey Storey, S.
Lambert, Hon. G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lambten, Viscount Nugent, G. R. H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Leavey, J. A. Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony Summers, Sir Spencer
Leburn, W. G. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Legge-Bcurke, Maj. E. A. H. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Teeling, W.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Osborne, C. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Llewellyn, D. T. Page, R. G. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Partridge, E. Touche, Sir Gordon
Lloyd-George, Maj, Rt. Hon. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Turner, H. F. L.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pitman, I. J. Tweedsmuir, Lady
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan Pott, H. P. Vane, W. M. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter Price, David (Eastleigh) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Vickers, Miss J. H.
McKibbin, A. J. Profumo, J. D. Vosper, D. F.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Raikes, Sir Victor Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Redmayne, M. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Renton, D. L. M. Walker-Smith, D. C.
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Ridsdale, J. E. Wall, Major Patrick
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Rippon, A. G. F. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. HaroId (Bromley) Robertson, Sir David Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Roper, Sir Harold Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Maitland, Cdr. J. P. W. (Horncastle) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R Russell, R. S. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Marples, A. E. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marshall, Douglas Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Wood, Hon. R.
Maude, Angus Sharples, R. C. Woollam, John Victor
Medlicott, Sir Frank Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.