HC Deb 01 August 1957 vol 574 cc1556-72

Question again proposed.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Elliot

After one of our Parliamentary interludes which has had, I hope, the effect of cooling the atmosphere, and, it may be, the passions of the House, I trust that it will not be necessary for the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to proceed with the Motion which they have brought before the House. It is a Motion which is not really a matter for inquiry by the House. It is a discussion about a trade dispute outside the House. Furthermore, the matter has, I understand, been before the appropriate trade body. The Press Council was asked to deal with the matter, but refused, and the National Union of Journalists has been asked, also without success, to take it up.

It really becomes ridiculous that the House should be asked to inquire into a matter on which the responsible professional bodies themselves refuse to intervene. As to condemning the action of the Minister himself, no thinner case, I suggest, has ever been brought before the House of Commons. Not even the hon. Member for Hamilton has suggested anything against the Minister except that when asked to a meeting to give advice there he went, and gave advice. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Hamilton has been asked to many meetings and has given his advice at them, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also, and felt in no way blameworthy for that.

It is quite ridiculous to suggest that the stating of an opinion by a Member of Parliament is a subject into which Parliament should inquire and on which it should pronounce, whether or not it leads to subsequent action by those to whom the advice is given. To do so would be to bring the House continually into disputes with which it is not concerned.

I trust very much that it will not be necessary for the two hon. Members opposite to pursue the matter. The only practical suggestion which they have made is one which I think that even they regard as inadequate. No one has elaborated it in any way. If an inquiry should be held, by whom it should be held, and under what conditions? Nothing definite is said. There is no suggestion as to whether the person or persons appointed to inquire should have power to call for papers, to summon witnesses, to compel evidence on oath. Everybody knows the procedure under which inquiries of this House are held; a Select Committee, with the far-reaching powers given under the procedure of this House. One suggestion was that it should be inquired into by two Privy Councillors—how, not stated. These are not serious proposals to put before the House in support of such a grave matter as a Motion of censure on one of our colleagues.

When the hon. Member for Hamilton says that no person can be vindicated merely by a statement of opinion, it is also pertinent to remark that no one's name can be blackened merely by a statement of opinion. Evidence a great deal more substantial than this will have to be brought before the House—an inquiry under very much more concrete conditions than have been put forward— if the House is seriously to entertain the proposition that has been put before it, and to which, I contend, the House should now refuse its consent.

5.31 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

There are one or two points in this debate that are very perturbing, and I think that when he made his first statement, the Prime Minister underestimated the seriousness of this business. I am very disappointed in the attitude of hon. Members opposite, who have taken a very light view indeed. I had always thought that both sides of the House put the freedom of the Press at a very high level. Even when the Press, as it often does, hurts and grieves us, we learn to put up with it.

Particularly do I remember that when we were on that side of the House and were pleading for the Royal Commission on the Press, hon. Members now opposite constantly assailed and derided us and affirmed their view that the Press was sacrosanct from the interference of any politician.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot)is summed up in the national poet's words: Their juggling hocus pocus arts To cheat the crowd. To juggle with fact, and to advance hocus pocus irrelevant arguments, deceives no one but himself.

In his first intervention in the matter, the Prime Minister made an astonishing statement, although it is true that he was taken to task by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)who had spoken previously. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement that this was a small, obscure newspaper. It reminded one of the servant's baby. Apparently the principle had to be altered in this case because the paper did not enjoy a very large circulation.

The Prime Minister's other statement was that the Under-Secretary of State had not used his position as a Minister. That has been dealt with, but the irrelevant arguments that have been floating around have been in connection with the News Chronicle and the Daily Herald. I notice that the editor of one newspaper evidently thought that he had said the last that needed to be said about it when he observed that a former editor of the Daily Herald had stated that he could not write an article without looking over his shoulder to see if someone of the Trades Union Congress was not asking him to keep in line with party resolutions. We have had the same kind of argument trotted out in reference to the News Chronicle. Surely it stands out that the Daily Herald was at that time, and up to this week, committed to a policy, and a deviation from that policy was to be called in question. The same could be said of the News Chronicle—

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

The British Gazette.

Mrs. Mann

The Dumfries and Galloway Standard has been committed to Liberal Radical policies. It has received letters from the former Leader of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I refer to the person who resigned from that party last year—and from the present Leader, congratulating it on pursuing that Liberal policy. Therefore, the intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary was entirely different from that in the Daily Herald and the News Chronicle cases, when there was a definite breaking away from an agreed policy. In this instance, the Under-Secretary intervened with the intention of creating a break away from a well-established policy.

It has been said that the editor was not dismissed on account of politics at all, but I do not think that it has been pointed out that he was dismissed at a period when the advertising revenue was at its peak and had been rising steadily, and when the circulation of the paper had also been increasing. It is, therefore, very difficult indeed for anyone to explain why he was sacked except for the reasons that are so obvious to everybody in this House.

I am very disappointed indeed in hon. Members opposite. I thought that some of them cherished democracy, and that they had the courage to submit to opinions even when they were hurled against them, and even when they were unjust. I had to do so for very many years, and I willingly put up with it. That is why I resent, and for the other reasons which I have given, that any hon. Member, particularly a Minister, should call so repeatedly and interfere. If the hon. Gentleman had been an ordinary Member he could have written a letter to the same paper, but I resent that he should have interfered in this way, and that his interference should have resulted in the humble editor of even a small newspaper having to relinquish his post.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

Mr. Storey.

Mr. S. Storey (Stretford) rose——

Mr. John Paton (Norwich, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that hon. Members, with perfect right, wish to continue this debate, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to consider abandoning the proposal to finish the debate about old-age pensions by eight o'clock and allowing it to continue until ten o'clock?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of order for me. Mr. Storey.

Mr. Storey

I shall not keep the House more than a minute. I should not have intervened in the debate, on account of my connections with newspapers, if it had not been for a statement made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)in the course of his speech. The hon. Member said that the editor had the support of the Newspaper Society and of the Guild of Editors in his claim for damages for wrongful dismissal against his former owners.

As an ex-president of the Newspaper Society, I was astounded by that statement, and I have since been in touch with the director of the Society, who tells me that it is true that the editor approached the Society, but that he was told that it was the duty of the Society to advise newspaper owners and not their staffs. He was also told that the Guild of Editors was, by its rules, debarred from discussing any question between owners and their staff. I say no more. I leave it at that.

5.42 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

It is, of course, a serious matter for a Motion of this kind to be put down, and it was for that reason, although I regret the time taken from other discussions, that we considered that it would be quite wrong for the Motion to remain on the Order Paper and not to be disposed of before the Recess.

It is rare, fortunately, that charges are made against the conduct of an individual Member, and, therefore, when they are made, it is all the more necessary that they should be dealt with fairly and justly and, if possible, without prejudice. I am bound to say in this connection that since this affair began last Wednesday I have found great difficulty in discovering precisely what the accusation is which is made against my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). The terms of the Motion help us very little, and the supplementary questions that have been asked during the last two days have not helped us at all.

I had rather hoped that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), when he came to move his Motion, would be a little more specific. I had hoped that hon. Members opposite would bring some evidence to support the charges they were making, but I am bound to say that I have been quite disappointed in that. The hon. Member for Hamilton merely said what he had previously said, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who seconded the Motion—I am bound to say that I found his speech very surprising—practically said that it would have been all right for my hon. Friend to do what he did if he had done it a little more circumspectly, which seems a very strange moral standard for the great Liberal Party—a new moral standard.

Therefore, all that emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton was the new proposal that I should set up a committee or an independent tribunal of some kind to discover the facts of the situation. I am bound to say I think this is a very strange way to ask the House or the Government to proceed. First of all, Questions are put upon the Order Paper, then a Motion of Censure—what amounts to a Motion of Censure—is placed upon the Order Paper, and then it is proposed to have an inquiry to see whether there is anything in it which could justify a Motion.

This sounded all very nice. The hon. Member for Hamilton did it all very cleverly. It was very much like an attempt to reach a compromise, but it was really a compromise by malice out of innuendo, and so far as I am concerned that is not a runner. I am certainly not prepared to institute any inquiry designed to discover whether what my hon. Friend has told me is true, and I cannot believe that anyone who has any respect for the confidence which exists between colleagues and has in the past been maintained by my predecessors, would expect me to support such a course.

Allegations of one sort or another have been made, but there is really very little dispute about the facts. In November last year, my hon. Friend received an invitation from the newspaper to discuss the political situation in his constituency, and six months later the editor of the newspaper was replaced. My hon. Friend did not ask for this meeting, nor did he ask any of the directors to call the meeting. What form did the invitation take? The letter has been read out, and I will not weary the House by reading it again. Hon. Members must decide whether it was cordial or peremptory according to their own judgment.

The letter was addressed, I would ask the House to note, to my hon. Friend at his party offices in Dumfries. What did it all amount to? Here we have a newspaper, quite contrary to what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann)has just said, which has for four General Elections, including the 1945 General Election when there was another Liberal candidate—I do not distinguish between my hon. Friend and what might be called an orthodox Liberal candidate—supported my hon. Friend. Therefore, the tradition of the paper, so far as it had a political tradition in this matter, was in four General Elections, including a General Election when there was a three-cornered fight, to support my hon. Friend.

The directors learn that there is now to be a Liberal candidate who will intervene at the next Election. They have to decide what policy they are to follow and which candidate they will support, the National Liberal or the Liberal, and they ask my hon. Friend to come and see them and give them some account of his views on politics, both internal and external problems, so that they can make up their minds.

My hon. Friend accepted this invitation. Is the burden of the accusation against him that he accepted the invitation? I do not think a single hon. Member in the House who, if he had received a similar invitation from a constituency newspaper or a local newspaper largely circulating in his constituency, would not have accepted it. Ought my hon. Friend to have replied in terms like these, "Oh, no; I could not accept such an invitation. I could not possibly discuss the political situation, either in the constituency or in the country, with you, for that would amount to a gross interference on my part with the liberty of the Press"? I really cannot believe, therefore, that it is my hon. Friend's accepting the invitation and discussing his views, and, of course, urging the directors to continue the policy they have followed for the last four General Elections, about which hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining. There is nothing wrong in that.

Let us take it to the next stage. Much has been made of the point that at a certain stage of the meeting the editor was not present. Certainly this was not at the request or instance of my hon. Friend, nor did he know that this was going to be done during the meeting. It is not for me—we are now discussing my hon. Friend's conduct and not that of anybody else—to question whether the directors were right or wrong in doing that.

My hon. Friend assures me that at this meeting there was no discussion of the position of the editor. There was discussion only of the policy of the paper. My hon. Friend is, of course, interested in the policy of the paper, whether it would support him or not, and it is surely quite proper that this matter should have been discussed by the directors. After this discussion, the editor, I understand, was recalled and was told the decision of the directors.

The next point that I have to deal with is the appointment of the new editor, for that point has been made and I should like to answer it. It has been said that my hon. Friend assisted the directors of the newspaper to secure a new editor. He certainly did not choose a new editor, but since the point has been raised I think it should be dealt with. The directors were considering whether or not it would be necessary to make a change. My hon. Friend was certainly asked at a certain point—and no doubt other people were asked—whether he could suggest any possible names, and he certainly did make suggestions to help the directors. But the choice lay with them, and it was entirely a matter for them to choose whom they should appoint. My hon. Friend assures me that after doing this he did not know what would happen, and four months later when the change was made he had not known previously that it was going to take place. He tells me that, and I accept his statement.

There is, I think, a certain amount of misconception, and perhaps the most interesting part of the debate on the wider field was about what one might call the rights of an editor and the liberty of the Press, which was referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that this is a matter which varies according to the character of the arrangements made in each newspaper. The amount of latitude which is given to an editor varies a great deal. At one extreme, there are newspapers where, by tradition and sometimes even by contract or even by the articles of association, it has been understood that the editor is to have a very wide measure of political control. There are the other extremes where editors are bound to follow certain policies, this being inherent in the appointment.

I do not want to have to keep mentioning the Daily Herald, but when the Labour Party was in office, the articles of association of that newspaper provided that the political policy of the paper should be laid down from time to time by the conferences of the Labour Party. I do not know quite how that was actually achieved. I hope that Ministers were never involved at all, because, of course, if they had been, or even if they had been asked to give an opinion, it would, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, have been highly improper.

Broadly speaking, these extremes are those where, by tradition or arrangement, the powers of the editor are almost complete, and those where they are tied up in the very character of the appointment. Broadly speaking, that may be said to be the fact. The majority of newspapers have consistently followed the policies of their proprietors. The Daily News, the great Liberal paper of the past, followed the policies laid down by the Cadbury and Rowntree families. The Daily Chronicle, after it was purchased by Mr. Lloyd George, followed the policy which he wished it to follow, and when they were amalgamated under the Cadbury-Rowntree control, the paper followed, broadly, the policies of its new proprietors. The Northcliffe Press and Harmsworth Press have followed for many years the policies laid down by their successive proprietors, and I would hesitate to suggest that Lord Beaver-brook's papers followed any views except his own.

In this situation, there is only one man who has ever been able to obtain what I suppose economists would call the perfect position of equilibrium—Mr. Scott, who, when he edited the Manchester Guardian, was both proprietor and editor, and that, of course, makes it very much easier, do not think that an editor, unless he has some special clause or agreement, has a right to conduct the paper contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. That has no foundation in fact.

I have dealt with this point at some length because it is really the one which some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to maintain. If not, then what is the point of their argument? The fact is that, in most cases, an editor is answerable to his directors or proprietors, and as long as he keeps their confidence he is secure.

I return to this accusation. Six months, then, after the meeting to which I have referred, the editor is replaced by the directors. I have had an assurance from my hon. Friend that he was in no way responsible for this decision. Indeed, the directors published a statement. I am not concerned with the directors or the proprietors; they must deal with their own affairs. There may have been other reasons which made them discontented, and if that is so the editor has his remedies which he can take up. Broadly speaking, the position is that the newspaper invited the Member for the constituency in which it largely circulates to discuss the political position there with them—the editor and the directors. So far, there can be no question of any possible impropriety on the part of my hon. Friend. "But," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, "he did all these things as a Minister, and that makes all the difference." I do not think that that really makes much sense.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Manchester, Openshaw)

The Prime Minister has said, possibly quite rightly, that they asked the hon. Gentleman because he was the Member. There is another hon. Member, the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), whose constituency is also in the circulation area of the paper. Was he asked to go to the meeting, too?

The Prime Minister

I understand that this paper circulates largely in the constituency of my hon. Friend, and, secondly, that the problem that arose, or the problem to which they called attention, was that having supported him in four General Elections, in one of which there was another Liberal candidate, there was now to be a new situation in which there were two rival Liberal candidates, and they wished to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. W. R. Williams

Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the hon. Member for Galloway was not called to the meeting?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir; they were interested in the position arising from the intervention of a Liberal candidate, which had just been announced. It put them in the position that they had to make a decision, as they did in 1945, which candidate to support.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie)was called to the meeting in 1945, when he was an Independent Conservative and his party put up an official Conservative against him?

Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)

I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister for allowing me to intervene. I can at once answer both points. I was not asked to the meeting. I have had no consultations in the recent development—none whatever. With regard to 1945, the paper in question supported me when certain Members of my own party were behaving very badly.

The Prime Minister

I think that is a great tribute to what I may call the liberalism, in the true sense of the word, of the directors of the paper.

What does all this mean—this reference to my hon. Friend acting as a Minister? Are hon. Members trying to say that he has been trying, and that the Government have been trying, to interfere with the liberty of the Press? Interference with the liberty of the Press by the Government is very difficult; indeed, it is virtually impossible, because in order to interfere there must be some sanction. In order to make a threat, there must be some power to enforce it, and Ministers have not that power. There may be occasions when they have the power, as in war, but in ordinary times they have no such power. There is no question in anyone's mind that my hon. Friend, much as I respect him and important as his office is, was called to this interview not on behalf of the Government as a whole, but because he was the Member for the constituency, and we all know it.

I therefore do not think that there is really any power in the attack about the freedom of the Press. I do not think my hon. Friend has acted in any way contrary to what he should have done. Curiously enough—and I have noticed that as a whole in this country the Press is quite sensitive to an attack on what is called the freedom of the Press

—the Press seemed to be wholly unmoved by this incident. I have not heard that one single article has been published about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Manchester Guardian."] For all this, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has twice demanded the resignation of my hon. Friend.

I do not think that after this debate the accusations that have been made against my hon. Friend, which have not been supported by any argument, will be seen to have any foundation at all. My view is that my hon. Friend's honour is completely vindicated. I should hope that he would stay with us in his Ministerial position, and I should count myself indeed worthy of censure if I were to yield to any pressure to ask him to resign.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

Before the Prime Minister sits down, will he answer a question? Everyone will appreciate the way in which he has attempted to defend a colleague, but can he give an assurance that in private his Friend's knuckles will be rapped and that this will not happen again?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 293.

Division No. 178.] AYES [6.0 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Collins, V. J. (Shorditch & Finsbury) Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Albu, A. H. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Grey, C. F.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Anderson, Frank Cronin, J. D. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Awbery, S. S. Crossman, R. H. S. Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Bacon, Miss Alice Cullen, Mrs. A. Grimond, J.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hale, Leslie
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Darling, George (Hillsborough) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Benson, G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hamilton, W. W.
Beswick, Frank Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hannan, W.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Delargy, H. J. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Blackburn, F. Dodds, N. N. Hayman, F. H.
Blenkinsop, A. Donnelly, D. L. Healey, Denis
Blyton, W. R. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Boardman, H. Dye, S. Herbison, Miss M.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hewitson, Capt. M.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Edelman, M. Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Bowles, F. G. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Holman, P.
Boyd, T. C. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Holmes, Horace
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Holt, A. F.
Brockway, A. F. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Hoy, J. H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Fernyhough, E. Hubbard, T. F.
Burke, W. A. Fienburgh, W. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Finch, H. J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fletcher, Eric Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Callaghan, L. J. Forman, J. C. Hunter, A. E.
Carmichael, J. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Champion, A. J. George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Ga[...]then) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Chapman, W. D. Gibson, C. W. Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Chetwynd, G. R. Gooch, E. G. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Clunie, J. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Jeger, George (Goole)
Coldrick, W. Greenwood, Anthony Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Oswald, T. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Johnson, James (Rugby) Owen, W. J. Sparks, J. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Padley, W. E. Steele, T.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Paget, R. T. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Stonehouse, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Stones, W. (Consett)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Palmer, A. M. F. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Kenyon, C. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pargiter, G. A. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
King, Dr. H. M. Parkin, B. T. Swingler, S. T.
Lawson, G. M. Paton, John. Sylvester, G. O.
Ledger, R. J. Pearson, A. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Peart, T, F. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pentland, N. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Popplewell, E. Thornton, E.
Lewis, Arthur Prentice, R. E. Timmons, J.
Logan, D. G. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Tomney, F.
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Usborne, H. C.
MacDermot, Niall Probert, A. R. Viant, S. P.
McInnes, J. Proctor, W. T. Watkins, T. E.
McKay, John (Wallsend) Pryde, D. J. Weitzman, D.
McLeavy, Frank Pursey, Cmdr. H. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Randall, H. E. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mahon, Simon Rankin, John West, D. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Redhead, E. C. Wheeldon, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Reid, William White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean Rhodes, H. Wigg, George
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. A. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mason, Roy Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wilkins, W. A.
Mayhew, C. P. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Willey, Frederick
Mellish, R. J. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Williams, David (Neath)
Messer, Sir F Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian Ross, William Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mitchison, G, R. Royle, C. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Monslow, W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Moody, A. S. Shurmer, P. L. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Silverman, Julius (Aston) Winterbottom, Richard
Mort, D. L. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Moss, R. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Woof, R. E.
Moyle, A. Skeffington, A. M. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas Slater, J. (Sedgefield) Zilliacus, K.
Oram, A. E. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Orbach, M. Sorensen, R. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Deer
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Errington, Sir Eric
Aitken, W. T. Butcher, Sir Herbert Erroll, F. J.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Farey-Jones, F. W.
Alport, C. J. M. Campbell, Sir David Fisher, Nigel
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Carr, Robert Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Cary, Sir Robert Foster, John
Armstrong, C. W. Channon, Sir Henry Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Ashton, H. Chichester-Clark, R. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Freeth, Denzil
Atkins, H. E. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Cole, Norman Gammans, Lady
Balniel, Lord Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Gamer-Evans, E. H.
Barber, Anthony Cooke, Robert Gibson-Watt, D.
Barlow, Sir John Cooper, A. E. Glover, D.
Barter, John Cooper-Key, E. M. Glyn, Col. R.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Godber, J. B.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Corfield, Capt. F. V. Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Goodhart, Philip
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood) Gough, C. F. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Cunningham, Knox Gower, H. R.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Currie, G. B. H. Graham, Sir Fergus
Bidgood, J. C. Dance, J. C. G. Grant, W. (Woodside)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Davidson, Viscountess Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Green, A.
Bishop, F. P. Deedes, W. F. Gresham Cooke, R.
Black, C. W. Digby, Simon Wingfield Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Body, R. F. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bossom, Sir Alfred Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Doughty, C. J. A. Gurden, Harold
Boyle, Sir Edward Drayson, G. B. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Braine, B. R. du Cann, E. D. L. Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Duthie, W. S. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, W.) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bryan, P. Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Ridsdale, J. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Rippon, A. G. F.
Hay, John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. McAdden, S. J. Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel Macdonald, Sir Peter Robson Brown, Sir William
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Mackeson, Brig, sir Harry Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James McKibbin, A. J. Roper, Sir Harold
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Mackie, J. H. (Calloway) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Russell, R. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount McLean, Neil (Inverness) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Sharples, R. C.
Hobson, john(Warwick & Leam'gt'n) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Shepherd, William
Holland-Martin, C. J. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hope, Lord John Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hornby, R. P. Maddan, Martin Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Soames, Christopher
Horobin, Sir Ian Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Speir, R. M.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Markham, Major Sir Frank Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Marlowe, A. A. H. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Howard, John (Test) Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. Stevens, Geoffrey
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Marshall, Douglas Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Mathew, R Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C Maude, Angus Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hulbert, Sir Norman Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Storey, S.
Kurd, A. R. Mawby, R. L. Studholme, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Summers, Sir Spencer
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Medlicott, Sir Frank Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hyde, Montgomery Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Teeling, W.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Moore, Sir Thomas Temple, John M.
Iremonger, T. L. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nabarro, G. D. N. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nairn, D. L. S. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Neave, Airey Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Nicholls, Harmar Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Nugent, G. R. H. Turner, H. F. L.
Joseph, Sir Keith O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Kaberry, D. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Vane, W. M. F.
Kershaw, J. A. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Kimball, M. Page, R. G. Vickers, Miss Joan
Kirk, P. M. Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lagden, G. W. Partridge, E. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Lambert, Hon. G. Peyton, J. W. W. Wall, Major Patrick
Lambton, Viscount Pickthorn, K. W. M. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Pike, Miss Mervyn Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Leather, E. H. C. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Leavey, J. A. Pitman, I. J. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Pott, H. P. Webbe, Sir H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Price, David (Eastleigh) Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Linstead, Sir H. N. Profumo, J. D. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield) Raikes, Sir Victor Wood, Hon. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Ramsden, J. E. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Rawlinson, Peter
Longden, Gilbert Redmayne, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Renton, D. L. M. Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.