§ 10.21 p.m.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)
I beg to move,That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 23rd October.As the House will realise, this Motion provides for the resumption of the Adjournment until 23rd October. This was interrupted by the recall of the House to discuss the Suez situation. There is no need for me, I think, to make very many remarks when moving this Motion, but I should simply like to remind the House that the powers under Standing Order 112 will, of course, still operate. These provide authority for a further recall of the House by Mr. Speaker if the Government make representations to Mr. Speaker.
I repeat to the House the undertaking which I gave on 1st August, namely, that if the public interest so requires, we shall ask for recall of the House. This was the course we adopted on this occasion when we had representations from Her Majesty's Opposition and when we considered it in the public interest to recall the House in the manner prescribed by the Standing Order.
It is the Government's desire to work with the House of Commons. We think we have done right in responding to the request and in exercising our powers on this occasion. I give the House a further undertaking, quite regardless of any differences which we may have had in the debate which has taken place, that it will be our constitutional practice to recall the House, if the situation so demands, at the special instance of the Opposition or taking into account any representations made by hon. Members, but at the discretion of the Government, under the Standing Order.
§ 10.24 p.m.
§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
I rise to oppose this Motion on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to ask the Government that arrangements shall be made for maintaining Parliament in continuous session during this crisis.
318 In the opening sentence of the magnificent speech with which my right hon. Friend closed this debate, he said that the two days' debate which we have had upon this crisis abundantly justified the recall of Parliament.
Many people have spoken about their memories of this House. I have some too, and I can remember an occasion when from the other side of the House came a call to this side to speak for the nation. My right hon. Friend this evening, by his speech and intervention at the end of the debate, has extracted a promise from the Prime Minister that has served and saved the nation.
The events of the past six weeks have clearly indicated that the present Government are not to be trusted without Parliament being in session. At a time— [Interruption.] I will wait. We can afford to wait. Our patience is not exhausted.
We are facing a grave situation still. For that reason, I think that the House and the country also realise that at a time like this, the Prime Minister does not speak for all the nation. He has won tonight but he has won by a party vote. We say that it is essential that in a period of such deep crisis as this, the House should be kept in session, and that the nation needs the services of the Opposition and the services of the Leader of the Opposition.
Many questions which were raised in the debate still remain unanswered. Were it not for the last promise which has been made, the debate would have left the House and the nation feeling disturbed and confused at the lack of leadership by the Government. For that reason in particular—there are others too—we owe it to our constituents and to the nation to continue Parliament in session. It is our duty to stay, and it would be a dereliction of duty to go away.
There would be no difficulty in arranging business for the House to discuss. For example, we could spend more than one day next week and the following week discussing the increasing gravity of the financial and economic position. For obvious reasons, the impact of the crisis and all that has taken place in the financial and economic sphere have not been touched upon in the debate, but they 319 deserve to be mentioned. There are others, too ; all kinds of problems. I believe that in asking to remain we are asking for what the nation would want us to do as Members of Parliament—to stay here at our job, to maintain this Parliament in continuous session.
The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) transformed our previous debate tonight. In addition to the House being here in this debating Chamber, there are other gatherings in this place. There are interesting rumours about how during the day back-bench Members behind the Government have been meeting, and the rumours say that during that meeting the Suez boys were beaten by the Chertsey lawyer. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey has secured that victory he has rendered a service to the nation.
§ Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)
In those circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the use of our all remaining here, except to listen to him?
§ Mr. Griffiths
One use would be to enable the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Water-house) to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One other use would be to enable other Members of his party to listen to him. They need to. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will speak in our subsequent debates. What he said tonight was abundant justification for our Amendment which we moved. It proved our case up to the hilt.
In opposing this Motion we are doing what our constituents want us to do. They will want us to stay. They are anxious; they are worried ; and they have a right to be anxious and a right to be worried. Therefore, for my hon. and right hon. Friends I oppose this Motion. We shall vote against it in the Lobby. It is our plain duty to stay at our job, and so we must oppose this Motion.
§ 10.33 p.m.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
Yesterday morning I received a message from Oldham from a Labour constituent of 320 mine. She was an out-patient at the infirmary. Her husband had been serving for years in the Navy, and had just completed his service and returned to Oldham on six weeks' demobilisation leave, and had obtained work and a good position at a local dye works. He had not been in a home port for years. He received orders to leave at once for the Mediterranean, and was flown to Malta, and the lady wants to know what is happening, what she is to live on, what her position is to be, and when she may see her husband again.
I feel ashamed to think that we are to go away on holiday while problems like that are arising every day. I have no doubt that my constituent's husband, when he reads of the debate we have had today, will be a little relieved. When he reads of the somewhat belated undertaking that we are not going to use force in the Mediterranean I have no doubt he will be pleased, but probably the first thing he will do will be to write me another letter to ask me to explain why in those circumstances he was sent there at all. That is one of the questions I should like to stay here to ask and to have answered next week.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) asked what are we going to do? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, there are a number of matters to discuss. Tomorrow at two o'clock I shall receive in this House a deputation of workers from Lancashire whose factory is being closed down, and 1,750 of whom, textile engineers, are facing unemployment. Is that the sort of thing which we ought to ignore, while we go away to Brighton and Dover? Shall we, by going away, be doing our duty while all those sorts of things are being done?
I was rung up last night to be told the Minister of Education had cut Oldham's educational programme, and that the grants for two important schools had been refused. [Laughter.] The Chief Whip laughs, but he has sufficient experience to know that the first day of the Parliamentary holiday is the day when every Tory Minister does the things which he has been contemplating for months but has been too ashamed to announce. Every time Parliament adjourns, 321 a whole series of unpopular decisions which have been hanging fire for months are taken in the hope that criticism will be avoided, and in the hope that after a long vacation some of the worst atrocities will be forgotten.
§ Mr. Hale
Two schools which have been contemplated for years are not to be built on two great housing estates in Oldham where no one would doubt the need. I have to hope that I shall find one of the Ministers in London and have the opportunity of discussing problems like that.
Today it was announced that the trade gap has widened again and the Chancellor's miserable economic policy is showing the failure which we warned him was inevitable when he introduced it. Is Parliament to adjourn and not have the opportunity of discussing the economic situation of the nation? Here is a Government who were talking yesterday about war over 1½d. a gallon on petrol and are now saying that we shall not discuss a widening trade gap, a loss of gold reserves and a loss of confidence. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite who are jeering at this moment would look a little more at their papers they would see that the result of their policy is that the mark in Germany is likely to be appreciated in value, on the recommendation of the European Payments Union, which is virtually further devaluing the £ in connection with one of our important competitors.
These are all grave matters. The Prime Minister, in what appeared to be his political swan-song a few minutes ago, said that it was impossible to say what Nasser would do and it was impossible to envisage what events might transpire in the next few days or in the next few weeks, and therefore it was impossible for him to forecast what he would do. I agree, on the experience of the last few days, that it is exceedingly difficult to forecast what the right hon. Gentleman will do, though I could make a suggestion as to what he should do next.
In these circumstances it is a negation of democracy for this House to adjourn at this moment. I personally would much rather be on holiday with my wife 322 than be here, if I consulted my own personal desires—[Laughter]—but it is a negation of democracy for the House to adjourn at a time like this. I am always happy to give hon. Members opposite some opportunity for mild amusement because they have had a very depressing time today. But let them remember that 20,000 men, called from their homes, their wives and their families, and taken to the Mediterranean, are probably not seeing the joke.
It is our responsibility to be here and to see that this very grave procedure of conscripting men who have completed their engagements, making them break their employment and tearing them away from their homes, should be followed only in the gravest emergency and should continue only for the shortest possible time. Now that the Prime Minister has changed his mind and is going to refer to the United Nations and is not going to shoot his way through the Canal, surely the time has come for this wholly unnecessary mobilisation to be cancelled. But I am not sure that that will be done if we do not remain here. That is why I suggest that there is an overwhelming case today, in the interests of the preservation of democracy, for this House to continue to sit until it has grappled with some of the gravest of the problems that confront us.
§ 10.41 p.m.
§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
I should be out of order if I were to raise certain points which have not yet been raised on the Suez Canal issue. Therefore, I believe that it is of paramount importance for us to be here during the rest of this week and the week after.
This country is saying that it should be strong, but I will give one example of how, because of muddle, engineers and farmers are being called up at the present moment. British agriculture has had a distressing harvest and there, on the opposite benches, sit the people who promised the country at the last General Election that they could be trusted to bring down prices and to preserve peace. Yet had it not been for the Opposition tonight, Britain would have been nearer the brink of war than she was in 1938. So tonight the Opposition can claim that it has saved the country and has extracted promises from the most muddled Prime Minister of the twentieth century.
323 We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the promises we needed, but I say categorically that had Parliament not been recalled, we should probably have been at war before our return in October. [Laughter.] I am not concerned about the laughter or smiles of the Tories. Sometimes the distance between laughter and a death rattle is not very great.
We have been told this evening the exact situation regarding the users' association, but we have not yet been told how it was that French troops went to Cyprus. Were they invited by the Prime Minister of Britain or did M. Guy Mollet ask Britain to put French troops there? These matters should be made clear. I would remind the party opposite of Egyptian history. There was a time when, up to 1882, the competition between the French and British for the control of Egypt was of vital importance. Are we now working together in the Middle East?
There is another question which has not been answered. When in 1954 we retreated from the Canal area and the Government agreed that the Suez Canal would come under Egypt's control, the Prime Minister did not then put forward this theory. The right hon. Gentleman said in the August debate that this was an absolutely new policy, and it has not been explained in this debate.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)
Order. So long as the hon. Member is connecting his argument with the Motion for the Adjournment, but without going into details of the subject itself, and merely using it as an instance of why the House should not adjourn, he is in order.
§ Mr. Davies
I agree with your Ruling. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am in order in giving reasons why this House should not adjourn, and one reason is this sentence of the Prime Minister :No arrangements for the future of this great international waterway could be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government which would leave it in the unfettered control of a single Power which could, as recent events have shown, exploit it for purposes of national policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 923.]Was that the policy of the Government in 1954? Did they tell that to Egypt then?
§ Mr. Davies
It is for Mr. Deputy-Speaker to tell me whether I am out of order, not the Government Chief Whip or other hon. Gentlemen opposite. At this juncture the British people have to bear pretty well the highest cost of living in the world, when they were promised the cheapest. Our farming industry is now in dire peril, and we are almost on the brink of war. If there was ever a time when the British Parliament needed to be in session, it is at this moment. Therefore, I believe that we will be fully justified in going into the Lobby to demonstrate to the country our belief that the Opposition are indeed the guardian of the rights of the British people at this juncture.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)
I want to pursue a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on the topic of mobilisation and the retention by Parliament of its watch in these very grave circumstances of the partial but considerable mobilisation of our Armed Forces. It will be recalled that on 2nd August we were given a pledge by the Prime Minister, repeated in more specific terms by the Secretary of State for War, that mobilisation would not be taken further than the point which was defined quite carefully in that debate—which was the calling up of those members of the forces for whom no Proclamation was needed, and a very few additional men—without the recall of Parliament
We accepted that pledge. Now Parliament has been recalled. Therefore, in a sense the Secretary of State for War is released from that pledge. If we cannot have the retention of the sitting of Parliament during the period of this crisis, as we have asked tonight, can we at least have a renewal of the pledge that there will be no further measure of mobilisation without the immediate recall of Parliament?
It is by no means a complete substitute for keeping the House sitting during the next few weeks. That is a much preferable course and one for which we shall vote. However, the very least that could be given is a renewal of the pledge that no extension of the already very considerable degree of mobilisation will be made without the immediate recall of 325 Parliament. Before we vote tonight we should have an answer to that.
That is a mere minimum and does not satisfy our conditions. We do think, as has been pointed out, that on this mobilisation issue alone, when a very considerable number of our fellow citizens have had incomparably greater disturbance in their lives than the mere disturbance of our holidays through sitting in Parliament, almost the least we can do is to have Parliament to watch over what is being done with the men in the Mediterranean. After all, on 2nd August we were given an assurance that they were called up as a purely precautionary measure. Since then there have been many statements about what the purpose was. Tonight, again, there has been a contradiction of those statements and it is very difficult for any man who has been called up now to know the reason.
For all those reasons, by far the best thing to do would be to comply with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has proposed and keep Parliament in session. If that is not done, if that suggestion is resisted by the Government, may we at any rate know that the military measures of mobilisation, which are a grievous burden on our fellow citizens, will not be extended at all beyond their present point without the recall of Parliament?
§ 10.50 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)
In addition to the very weighty arguments which have been adduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to put a point of some importance about our methods of procedure which the House should now consider. It has for long been our custom that the Government of the day should make their decisions in Cabinet in the secrecy of their own meetings and that they cannot inform the House or any other body in the country of the nature of their proposals until they are revealed in the House.
That may be all very well in matters of internal policy, because, in the main, the Government's proposals will be crystallised in Bills which the House can discuss upon several occasions ; in Second Reading debates ; in Committee ; on Report, and on Third Reading, or in the debate upon the Budget, which, again, must go through its stages and be 326 crystallised in a Finance Bill. In that way the House has an opportunity of amending the decisions of the Executive, either by deleting or adding to them. In that way Parliament keeps a certain sovereignty over the Executive, which is altogether desirable and wholesome for British democracy.
When we are discussing the Suez crisis and matters of foreign policy of that type, however, it is quite impossible for the House to maintain that degree of supervision over the Executive. Indeed, when policy matters pertaining to Suez or other foreign issues arise if the House is not sitting, there is no need for a Bill to be introduced or for the House to be called to consider the decisions of the Executive; those decisions will be put into operation without the House being called together at all.
During the past five weeks it is no exaggeration to say that a very great proportion of the people of the world, and certainly a large number of people in this country, have felt that the Government were dragging us into war without their representatives in the House having the opportunity to vet the decisions of the Executive or to comment in any way in reflecting public opinion upon those decisions.
Although it is possible for the House, in the processes of a Bill, to alter the decisions of the Executive by amending that Bill as it goes through the House, it is utterly impossible for the House, being brought back once a state of war has been brought into being, to cause any amendment to be made. If the House is not in session when great issues of foreign policy are occupying the attention of the country and the world there is no democratic life within Britain.
It is purely a question of the decision of, it may be, a slender majority of the Cabinet as to what actions this nation shall take. I submit that my right hon. Friend, in asking that the House should be kept in session, has in mind the fact that British policy in the field of foreign affairs, especially on the issue of the Suez Canal, cannot be vetted and agreed by the House of Commons unless it is called into session during the period when the Government are making their decisions.
For those reasons I should have thought that it would be wrong for the House to be sent into recess again until a date 327 probably about two months from now. Looking back upon the great crises of this century, we can see that on each occasion when world war has broken out it has been in the month in which Parliament goes into recess—August; that period signalised the start of the First World War and the war which began in 1939. I put it to hon. Members opposite, whose frivolous conduct during this debate must have shocked the whole nation, that this is not a frivolous matter.
It is not a frivolous matter when one remembers that the decisions of the Executive itself cannot be criticised or subjected to those pressures of public opinion which hon. Members are able to appreciate during the course of their visits to their constituencies. I submit that that is the very negation of democracy and that unless, when a great crisis of this type is upon us, the decisions of the Executive can be tempered by the pressure of public opinion, we are in very grave danger.
I submit that in the last two days we have witnessed the truth of what I am saying. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that the Government had made up their mind that they were going to pursue a particular course which, in the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, would have brought war very near indeed. I feel that, because the House was in session for these two days, much of the cloud has now disappeared from the international horizon. I know that the Prime Minister could call in aid the fact that even if his speech yesterday was correct, he has been double-crossed by Mr. Dulles. He could call that in aid if he wished, and some of us would understand if he did. But I put it to hon. Members that unless we had been in session Mr. Dulles would not have been greatly perturbed about the sort of speech which the Prime Minister intended to make yesterday had Mr. Dulles not interfered with him. Therefore, for all those reasons—
§ Mr. Lee
I am trying to address a serious argument to the House, that because of the nature of our Constitution, because of the procedure under which we debate matters of importance in this House, matters of the importance of the one which we have been discussing, there is no possibility of amendments being moved which could temper decisions of the Executive unless the House is in session. I should have thought that that was a very great principle which is enshrined in our democratic constitution and without which Britain could not very well function.
I wish to put a further issue which has arisen from our debates. We have now learned that the canal users' association, or whatever it may be, is not to have the support of the United States Government. We have learned that the United States Government is, to use its own term, taking its reserve tanker fleet out of "mothballs."
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman now appears to be entering into an argument about the Suez Canal.
§ Mr. Lee
No. It looks that way, but I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am not.
What I want to ask is this : in view of that decision, are the Government still determined to "go it alone" over Suez? In other words, this involves the question of whether we have a sufficient reserve tonnage of tankers to adopt that alternative. That issue has not yet been discussed in this House and I feel that it would be wrong for the House to go into recess again without knowing whether that alternative is available to this country, as obviously it is to the United States.
That is just one of the issues which I believe we could discuss with benefit to the country. But, in the main, I rest my case on the principle which I have outlined, that when we have the Executive taking decisions which are not capable of being vetted by the House, which do not depend on a Bill being submitted to the Commons, it is the very negation of that Parliamentary democracy on which we pride ourselves.
Because that is one of the issues of the type I have tried to mention, I support 329 my right hon. Friend in his belief that only by keeping the House in session at this period can we represent the wishes of our people, can we submit to the Executive evidence of the stresses and strains under which our people have been living for six weeks, and, in that way, faithfully represent the views of our constituents to the Executive who cannot know of them unless the House is in session.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)
Mr. Deputy-Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS : "Divide"]—I hope that hon. Members who are calling that we should divide will listen for five minutes to a matter which I believe to be of immediate importance and one about which the Government or the House can do nothing in recess.
That is the question of the recall of National Service men and the payment they receive. When the recall took place in August I was firmly of opinion that National Service men would be excluded from the call-up. I readily confess my mistake; I did not know at that time that the Emergency Reserve included Category II of National Service men. National Service men have been recalled to serve during the emergency. I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask what the situation of National Service men would be in relation to pay because many were losing heavily in comparison with wages paid in ordinary employment. I think hon. Members will agree that this is a matter of immediate importance.
The Prime Minister referred the matter to the War Office. I do not know whether the War Office has yet made an announcement about the pay of National Service men recalled to serve in the emergency. If the War Office has been negligent in making an announcement—I do not know whether it has—I will make the announcement here and now. I received a letter from the War Office that National Service men recalled during the emergency will receive the rate of pay given to Regular soldiers. I do not know whether that is generally known.
Many anomalies arise out of that. What happens to the National Service man whose two years' service has expired and who is kept in a unit because of the emergency?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am waiting to hear whether the hon. Member is going to relate that argument to the Motion before the House.
§ Mr. Winterbottom
I am relating the argument to the Motion as a reason why the House should not go into recess again.
I believe that to be a matter of immediate importance to the House of Commons, one which ought to be debated and time provided for a debate on it. There are National Service men whose two years have expired and who are in units which have been sent to the Middle East. Those men are not to receive the Regular soldier's rate of pay according to the letter I received from the War Office. Therefore, there are anomalies in the pay of National Service men serving in the emergency. I say quite categorically that that is a matter which ought to be decided upon by the House of Commons. If the decision of the Government that we should go back into recess until 23rd October is agreed to, there will be no opportunity for the House to consider the position of these men. If only for that reason, especially when selective service is growing, this question should be considered.
If only because of the financial consequences to these men, I say that a Government which go into recess when such an issue is undecided are cowardly to the men they have recalled for this emergency. I therefore support the suggestion that the House should not go into recess at any rate until the soldiers who have been recalled for this emergency have had the consideration of the House and, through that, have been properly provided for.
§ 11.6 p.m.
§ Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
There are some serious matters which ought to be discussed and it would be shocking for the House to disperse now for another month without more than half-an-hour's discussion of the fate of the men whose families have been the principal victims of this crisis up to now. It was left to the foresight and public spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to get an Adjournment debate last night in order to be able to raise some questions of 331 major significance about the position of the Army reservists.
I want to support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). We are asked by the Leader of the House to support a Motion for Adjournment for more than a month without a single assurance about the position of these reservists or about the use of the very extensive powers which now lie in the Government's hands. We have not even been given an assurance that there would be a recall of Parliament if further reservists were to be called up. At least, we ought to have from the Leader of the House a definite assurance that, in the light of the statement extracted from the Prime Minister tonight, no further reservists will be recalled without Parliamentary discussion.
The Government have power over more than 400,000 men and can recall them at any time, disrupt their family lives and interfere with their careers and with production in the factories—to send them where the Government will. We do not know officially how many have been recalled. It is rumoured that the number is 20,000. Certainly, it is many more than were indicated by the Secretary of State for War when he talked about a very small and limited number when these powers were given on 2nd August.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)
I think that the hon. Member is not quite right in his facts. A clear assurance was given by myself and the Prime Minister on 2nd August that if a marked increase were to be made in the recall of reservists, the House would be recalled. Further, last night I gave an assurance that there had been no marked increase in the recall of reservists from the original intention and that if such an increase occurred that undertaking still stood firm—that if there were a major increase in the recall of reservists the House would be recalled.
§ Mr. Swingler
I am grateful for that intervention. I understood that that assurance had expired as the House had been recalled. It was understood by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that because the House had been recalled that assurance given by the Prime Minister at the beginning of August had 332 expired. I now take it that the Secretary of State has given an assurance that although Parliament has been recalled once, any further call-up of reservists will be postponed until Parliament is recalled again. We may take that as a definite assurance that there will not be a further call-up without the recall of Parliament.
§ Mr. Strachey
Could the Secretary of State make that quite clear? What we have in mind is that there should be no extension of the categories which are called up and no extension on a wide scale of his present powers to call up ex-National Service men—powers which are very wide indeed. Of course, individuals might be called up. This is a very important matter.
§ Mr. Swingler
A lot depends on what is meant by "large." I do not think that it was conceived before that 20,000 men would be called up without a recall of Parliament. I think it would have been understood that the assurance to recall Parliament would be implemented automatically if 20,000 men were to be recalled. At any rate, we appear to have extracted some assurance that there will be a recall of the House if any substantial additional number of reservists are to be called to the Colours.
That is not, however, completely satisfactory. We ought to stay in session to discuss the fate of many of the men who have been recalled and the position of their families. The position in regard to these military preparations, or precautions or manoeuvres, has been altered somewhat by the development of today's debate. At the end of it, we now have from the Prime Minister the assurance that the Government will not shoot their way through the Canal and will not take any forceful action before there has been a reference of the Suez dispute to the Security Council.
We have the argument of the Foreign Secretary that the processes of the United Nations are protracted and, therefore, that negotiations through U.N.O. might take time. Are we satisfied that all these 333 reservists should be held in the Army during the long period of these negotiations? Should we now have these extra 20,000 men who are said to have been recalled? Should we not at least have a Parliamentary discussion of whether that large additional number ought to be retained in view of the changed policy, as it appears, of the Government?
What has happened in the course of today's debate and what the Prime Minister has said tonight make urgent a discussion of the defence situation and the military aspect of these operations and the cost of the military precautions and other consequential matters. We should not be doing our duty to the men who have been recalled and to their families if we disperse without any discussion of their fate, of the effect on the economy of the country or of the way in which these extensive military powers in the hands of the Government are being used.
Today's debate has shown what Parliament can do. It has been a great victory for democratic processes. In the course of the debate, opinions have been altered, new voices have been heard and there has been some sobering up in certain quarters. Are we to return to Government by Press hysteria? Are we to have another month of the same kind of campaigning and then, when Parliament meets, repudiation of articles by Members saying that they have never said such a thing as "shooting our way through the Canal"? Would it not be better to keep the House in session so that we may continue to cross-examine the Prime Minister, with beneficial results, and continue to cross-examine other Ministers, with beneficial results to their constituents, to the country and to world peace?
§ 11.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
During recent years, many speeches have been made in the country indicating that Parliamentary democracy is a thing that has had its day and that we should look for something fresh. If we need any comment on that, the difference between the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon and that made this evening is an eloquent testimony to the efficacy of the Parliamentary system of Government.
We have lived through two very dramatic days and there have been exceedingly 334 dramatic moments during their course. I first came to this House thirty-three years ago and during that time I have seen a great many episodes that will be part of Parliamentary history, but I have never seen anything as dramatic, or as great a justification for the Parliamentary process, as what happened during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) this afternoon.
When he rose I thought that we were about to have another legalistic disquisition proving that, after all, it does not matter very much—we are within the law. What happened afterwards indicated how important it is that Parliament should be in session during these moments of great crisis, for what happened when the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked a question. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not give an answer, but I noticed that a few minutes afterwards the Leader of the House whispered a few words to the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), and he left the Chamber.
A few minutes later the Prime Minister himself came in and there were private whisperings between Ministers which indicate that something important is being decided. I do not suggest that those conversations had any great effect on them, but I do say this : that the world tonight feels a great deal safer than it would have done had Parliament not been in session—although we have not yet had a complete repudiation of what was causing fear throughout the world.
I was recalled to the House from Switzerland, where I was attending a congress of young people from many countries. In addition to this country, America, Denmark, Germany, France, Holland, and possibly some others were represented. What this country had been doing was a lively topic of conversation in the common room during every recess in that lecture course ; and what has happened in this House during the past two days will, I am sure, restore the faith of a good many young people in the efficacy of our system of Government.
I ask the Leader of the House, who I know is a great believer in the Parliamentary 335 system and who, if I may say so, is a great practitioner of its best arts, to agree that we should remain in session until this great issue has been settled one way or the other. It is quite clear that had the Prime Minister's statement been made today instead of yesterday much of the information that we now have would not have been available to us.
This crisis may pass through various phases and it may be very important that the Government should be able to sound the opinion of this House on any given day when some fresh phase emerges. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in this age when Parliamentary democracy is still on its trial, to realise that this House is the greatest exponent of the efficiency of that system and that what has happened during the past two days indicates that if we are to remain a democracy we cannot better strengthen our position than by having Parliament in session while this crisis continues.
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
I want to put a consideration which has not been put in this short debate, and I hope to put it with that brevity which is characteristic of me, I think. The House will have noticed that during the days of the special sittings there has been no Question time. During the six weeks of the Recess a number of Questions have arisen to be put to Ministers. The speeches which have been made here tonight show how many problems are outstanding. A glance at the forthcoming Questions standing in my name will tell what special interest I have in that. Apart from my special interest, I suggest that the speeches which have been made tonight, adumbrating various problems requiring attention, are sufficient in themselves to justify the House sitting next week and having a Question time.
The Government have reversed their policy once tonight. I ask them to reverse it on this very important matter. The other aspect of this question has been stressed, that we are living in a time of crisis. Tonight it may well be that this country has been saved from war. I am not going to stress that, but, taking that aspect in conjunction with the aspect that I have just put about Question time, I appeal to the Government to allow the 336 House to sit next week in regular fashion and to have Question time.
§ 11.22 p.m.
§ Mr. R. A. Butler
It would be courteous to say one or two words in reply to the debate. The Government must adhere to the Motion we have put to the House at this late hour. We have listened with interest and, indeed, some sympathy to the arguments put forward by hon. Members.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who, I hope, will permit me to call him my right hon. Friend, because we worked together on one occasion, spoke about the importance of Parliamentary democracy. The House may take it that the Government desire to work with the House of Commons, and that the undertaking that I have given that the House will be recalled in circumstances which the Government regard as vital to the nation, and, indeed, to Parliamentary democracy, will be implemented in exactly the same way as we implemented our pledge given when the House rose at the beginning of August. I repeat that pledge, and I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who spoke first on behalf of the Opposition, that we shall listen to any representation made to us and be ready to exercise our privilege under the Standing Order.
The only other observations I would make are that the points raised about the reservists and those who have been called up, which are human matters, which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in particular, were shortly answered by the Secretary of State for War. It was, I think, seen that the Government are adhering to their undertaking given on this subject on 2nd August and the undertaking given last night by the Secretary of State for War in answer to the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Thus we are not introducing any new factor there, although these human questions of those who have been called up should, I think, be handled by 337 hon. Members, during the time that the House is not sitting, with the Departments concerned.
Mr. R. E. Winrerbottom
The question of payment and the financial consequences of the call-up to so many of the men who have been called up, and especially the National Service men, has not been dealt with in this House. It was not dealt with in the statement by the Secretary of State for War last night. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge no announcement has been made about the payment of these soldiers. Consequently, I must impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that thus is a matter which ought to be discussed and decided, because the people whom we have called up in our name are suffering financial hardship in consequence.
§ Mr. Butler
I have already drawn that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and I have examined the speech he made last night on the subject, which bears the interpretation given by the hon. Member. This debate is one in which it is, as I understand it, in order only to refer to questions which would be reasons for keeping the House sitting. It so happens that the hon. Member's intervention has made an impression upon my right hon. Friend, and, therefore, the debate has served a useful purpose besides supplementing the argument for keeping the House sitting. Further than that I cannot go. If the hon. Member has any questions he likes to put either to me or the Secretary of State for War he is at liberty to do so.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if we had any difficulties we should raise them with the Department concerned, but is he aware of the growing practice, under this Government, when the House is in Recess, of having both the senior and junior Minister of a Department absent? [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. We cannot have the House in session and the right hon. Gentleman says that we should take matters up with the Minister but we have both junior and senior
§ Minister away on holiday. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] I am sorry, but I have had that experience. [HON. MEMBERS : "With whom?"] The Secretary of the Department replies that in the absence of the Minister he or she will deal with the matter. Cannot the Leader of the House give an assurance that during the Recess one of the Ministers will be present to deal with questions?
§ Mr. Butler
One of the remarkable features of the activities of the Secretary of State for War, for which I am sure he claims no credit whatever, is that he has been on constant duty the whole time, like some other Ministers, who, as far as I can see, if they are to do their duty will have to be on constant duty for a long time ahead. I will, however, draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the point. He has already circulated my colleagues with a request that hon. Members' letters should be answered with the utmost expedition.
§ Mr. William Warbey (Ashfield)
Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the same point and ask him to reply to questions put to him by hon. Members when the House is not sitting?
§ Mr. Butler
As far as I know, the Foreign Secretary and his able team of Ministers handle questions put to them by hon. Members with the utmost expedition, but I will do my duty and pass on that request to my right hon. and learned Friend.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that the House should be in continuous session. I do not feel that that would lead to the best functioning of Parliamentary democracy. I think that we want a little change from one another from time to time, but provided that I stick to my undertaking given at the beginning of my remarks I feel that we shall be in session when the urgency of the occasion demands it.
§ Question put : —
§ The House divided : Ayes 300, Noes 232.339
|Division No. 280.]
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.
|Baxter, Sir Beverley
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
|Astor, Hon. J. J.
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
|Alport, C. J. M.
|Atkins, H. E.
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
|Bidgood, J. C.
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
|Baldwin, A. E.
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
|Barlow, Sir John
|Bishop, F. P.
|Armstrong, C. W.
|Black, C. W.
|Body, R. F.
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
|Mawby, R. L.
|Boothby, Sir Robert
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
|Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
|Bossom, Sir Alfred
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)
|Medlicott, Sir Frank
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
|Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon, J. A.
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
|Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
|Boyle, Sir Edward
|Moore, Sir Thomas
|Braine, B. R.
|Morrison, John (Salisbury)
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
|Holland-Martin, C. J.
|Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
|Holt, A. F.
|Nabarro, G. D. N.
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
|Hope, Lord John
|Nairn, D. L. S.
|Brooman-White, R. C.
|Hornby, R. P.
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
|Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
|Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
|Burden, F. F. A.
|Howard, John (Test)
|Nugent, G. R. H.
|Butcher, Sir Herbert
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
|Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
|Oakshott, H. D.
|Campbell, Sir David
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
|O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
|Hurd, A. R.
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
|Cary, Sir Robert
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
|Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
|Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
|Iremonger, T. L.
|Page, R. G.
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.
|Cooper, A. E.
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
|Pitman, I. J.
|Cooper-Key, E. M.
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
|Pitt, Miss E. M.
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
|Powell, J. Enoch
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
|Price, David (Eastleigh)
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
|Joseph, Sir Keith
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
|Crouch, R. F.
|Johnson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
|Profumo, J. D.
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
|Raikes, Sir Victor
|Ramsden, J. E.
|Currie, G. B. H.
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.
|Dance, J. C. G.
|Kerr, H. W.
|Kershaw, J. A.
|Rees-Davies, W. R
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
|Remnant, Hon. P.
|Deedes, W. F.
|Kirk, P. M.
|Renton, D. L. M.
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.
|Lagden, G. W.
|Ridsdale, J. E.
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
|Lambert, Hon. G.
|Rippon, A. G. F.
|du Cann, E. D. L.
|Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.
|Robertson, Sir David
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
|Langford-Holt, J. A.
|Duthie, W. S.
|Leather, E. H. C.
|Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
|Leavey, J. A.
|Roper, Sir Harold
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
|Leburn, W. G.
|Ropner, Cot. Sir Leonard
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
|Russell, R. S.
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
|Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
|Errington, Sir Eric
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
|Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
|Farey-Jones, F. W.
|Linstead, Sir H. N.
|Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
|Llewellyn, D. T.
|Sharples, R. C.
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
|Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
|Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
|Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
|Soames, Capt. C.
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
|Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
|Spearman, Sir Alexander
|Freeth, D. K.
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
|Speir, R. M.
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
|Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
|George, J. C. (Pollok)
|McAdden, S. J.
|Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
|Gibson. Watt, D.
|McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
|Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
|Macdonald, Sir Peter
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
|Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
|Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
|Gough, C. F. H.
|McKibbin, A. J.
|Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
|Gower, H. R.
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
|Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
|Graham, Sir Fergus
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
|Grant, W. (Woodside)
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
|Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)
|Studholme, Sir Henry
|Gresham Cooke, R.
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfie'd, W.)
|Summers, Sir Spencer
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
|Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
|Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
|Tavlor, William (Bradford, N.)
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
|Hall, John (Wycombe)
|Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
|Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury).
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
|Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
|Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
|Harris, Reader (Heston)
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
|Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
|Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
|Markham, Major Sir Frank
|Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
|Marlowe, A. A. H.
|Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
|Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfd)
|Marples, A. E.
|Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
|Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
|Tilney, John (Wavertree)
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
|Turner, H. F. L.
|Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
|Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
|Wall, Major Patrick
|Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
|Vane, W. M. F.
|Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
|Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
|Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
|Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
|Wood, Hon. R.
|Vickers, Miss J. H.
|Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
|Woollam, John Victor
|Vosper, D. F.
|Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
|Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
|Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES :
|Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
|Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
|Mr. Gerald Wills and Mr Godber
|Walker-smith, D. C.
|Ainsley, J. W.
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
|Hamilton. W. W.
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
|Owen, W. J.
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
|Padley, W. E.
|Awbery, S. S.
|Paget, R. T.
|Bacon, Miss Alice
|Hayman, F. H.
|Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
|Palmer, A. M. F.
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
|Herbison, Miss M.
|Hewitson, Capt. M.
|Parkin, B. T.
|Hobson, C. R.
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
|Peart, T. F.
|Plummer, Sir Leslie
|Blyton, W. R.
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
|Howell, Denis (All Saints)
|Probert, A. R.
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
|Hubbard, T. F.
|Proctor, W, T.
|Boyd, T. C.
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
|Pryde, D. J.
|Brockway, A. F.
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
|Pursey, Cmdr. H.
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)
|Hunter, A. E.
|Redhead, E. C.
|Burke, W. A.
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)
|Burton, Miss F. E.
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
|Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
|Irving, S. (Dartford)
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
|Callaghan, L. J.
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
|Champion, A. J.
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
|Chapman, W. D.
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&St. Pncs, S.)
|Chetwynd, G. R.
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
|Johnson, James (Rugby)
|Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
|Short, E. W.
|Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
|Shurmer, P. L. E.
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
|Silverman, Julius (Aston)
|Cove, W. G.
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
|Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
|Skeffington, A. M.
|Cronin, J. D.
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
|Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
|Crossman, R. H. S.
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
|Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
|Cullen, Mrs, A.
|Snow, J. W.
|King, Dr. H. M.
|Sorensen, R. W.
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
|Lawson, G. M.
|Sparks, J. A.
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)
|Davies, Harold (Leek)
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
|Lever, Harold (Cheelham)
|Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
|Stones, W. (Consett)
|de Freitas, Geoffrey
|Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
|Delargy, H. J.
|Lindgren, G. S.
|Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
|Dodds, N. N.
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
|Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
|Donnelly, D. L.
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
|Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
|MacColl, J. E.
|Swingler, S. T.
|McGhee, H. G.
|Sylvester, G. O.
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
|McKay, John (Wallsend)
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
|Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
|Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
|Mann, Mrs. Jean
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
|Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
|Usborne, H. C.
|Mayhew, C. P.
|Warbey, W. N.
|Finch, H. J.
|Mellish, R. J.
|Watkins, T. E.
|Mitchison, G. R.
|Forman, J. C.
|Wells, Percy (Faversham)
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
|Moody, A. S.
|Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
|Mort, D. L.
|West, D. G.
|Gooch, E. G.
|Wheeldon, W. E.
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
|White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
|Mulley, F. W.
|White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
|Grey, C. F.
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
|O'Brien, Sir Thomas
|Wilcock, Croup Captain C. A. B.
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
|Oram, A. E.
|Williams, David (Neath)
|Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
|Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
|Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
|Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
|Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
|Woof, R. E.
|Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
|Yates, V. (Ladywood)
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES :
|Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
|Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Simmons
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 23rd October.