HC Deb 20 May 1957 vol 570 cc927-41
Miss Herbison

I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end to insert: (being a day not before the first day of May nineteen hundred and sixty)". We have put down this Amendment to ensure that, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, the provisions of it will not immediately affect the people of Britain. We have inserted the specific date, 1st May, 1960, in order that a General Election may take place before the provisions of the Bill may operate.

We do that for a number of reasons, but for one in particular. The Government have no mandate whatever from the people of Britain for introducing this Measure. At no time in their propaganda, so far as I can discover, did the Conservatives say to the people, "When we are returned, either in 1951 or in 1955, we shall take steps, first of all, to make a separate Health Service contribution, and secondly, to raise the contribution." I have looked up the statement of Tory policy called "Britain Strong and Free, A Statement of Conservative and Unionist Policy". This was a policy statement issued before the 1951 General Election. Above the name of Winston S. Churchill, I find the words: I hope that this book will help our candidates, speakers and workers during the course of the Election. In other words, this was almost the "bible" for candidates and propagandists before the Election in their efforts to win support for the Tory Party in order to return that party to the House of Commons.

In page 29 of the booklet, there is the heading "Health Services". There is a little over a page devoted to the Health Services, and I read through what was said to ascertain whether Tory candidates and propagandists were told to inform the British people that there would be a separate contribution and an increase. I find nothing. What I do find, in the second paragraph, is this: We hold ourselves free to review and alter the present system of charges in order to establish proper priorities. Obviously they have reviewed them. As for altering the system of charges, in the years during which we have suffered a Tory Government, they have altered the system of charges; they have kept the system of charges which they found, and they have added many more charges to people when they are really sick.

Then I find this sentence, which is completely contrary to the provisions of the Bill: We must meet first, and fully, the needs of mothers, children and the really sick. In the Bill, we find that even the lowest wage earner is to pay a higher contribution. We on this side attempted to remove the charges. It is the really sick who will suffer by the charges which the Government are imposing.

There is another paragraph which would be amusing if it were not so serious. It says: They"— that is, the family doctors— have to deal as much with paper as with people. In discussion with the profession, a way must be found to preserve the personal link between doctor and patient and to devise a system of payment which will enable the family doctor both to lead a more satisfactory professional life and to give better service to the public. I wonder what the family doctors are thinking of the Government and that statement of theirs at the present time. It is only under a Tory Government that we have had any serious threat of the doctors going on strike.

In case the Conservative Party should have said something in 1955, I then turned to "United for Peace and Progress". One knows about the peace and the progress that they have brought us since 1955, but, unfortunately, it would be out of order for me to attempt to show how ludicrous are all the claims made on the first page of this document. Then, I turn to a section entitled "Good Health". The Tory Party did not have as much to say about good health in 1955 as in 1951. They devoted a page or so to various matters, including air pollution as an enemy to good health, which can cause death and various other things. Talking about priorities, they say: we rank them higher than free wigs or free aspirins. The Tory Party are great believers in priorities so long as their choice of priorities hits the weakest in the country. There is not one word in this 1955 prospectus of the Tory Party about the charge that they are now imposing.

It is because we feel so strongly that this is an important principle in the Bill, about which the Tories, in trying to gain votes, said nothing, and because we greatly resent the imposition of this tax upon the poorest in the country, that we say to the Government that if they are an honourable body of men and women, they should accept the Amendment so that the Bill, with all the hardships that it entails, can be deferred until they go to the country with another prospectus—whatever name they give it, they certainly will not he able to call the next one "United for Peace and Progress "—including these charges and see whether they get support for it.

Mr. Willis

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in the Amendment. It is only fair for the Government to accept our suggestion and wait for a General Election before implementing the Bill so that they will know whether they have support for what they are doing. My hon. Friend need not be surprised at the name that is given to the Tory Party election publications. A Government which can dismiss a hydrogen bomb explosion as a "nuclear incident" is capable of finding any words to bewilder the people about what is really going on.

In the publication to which my hon. Friend has referred, the Tory Party mentioned legislation that it intended to introduce. It mentioned legislation concerning smoke abatement and National Assistance. One thing that it did not mention was these charges. Even when it discussed the hospital services and items more relevant to the Bill, it did not mention that the Conservatives intended to impose these charges. If the Government were anxious to get the people behind them, they could at least postpone the operation of the Bill as we suggest.

I am always suspicious of Tories, Tory Governments and what they are doing. I cannot help feeling that on this occasion what the Government are trying to do is to get an additional £40 million from the working population so that by the time they decide to have a General Election they can have another phoney Budget and give so much back in taxation. The Government are preparing the way and this is one of the ways in which they will do it by getting this £40 million from people, many of whom will find it difficult to meet the cost.

Of course, I may be quite wrong: I should like to think so. One of the ways by which the Government can help to convince me that I am wrong is by accepting the Amendment. I would then say that everything was fair and above board and that the Minister was trying to play fair by the people. It is a very modest Amendment. I am surprised at my hon. and right hon. Friends in wanting to postpone the Bill only until 1960. That is only three years away. As, in any case, the Bill will not come into operation for a while yet, the difference is even less than three years. What is two years in the life of a nation or of the great National Health Service scheme?

Purely out of the kindness of his heart and from a desire to give the Opposition at least one little concession on the Bill —so far, the Government have given us nothing at all—the Minister could say that the Amendment is perfectly reasonable, that it will help to give the people time to consider what the Government are doing and will show that what they are doing is desirable. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us in addition that the Government are not trying to pull a fast one and to pave the way for a possible Tory victory at the next election, that would be a nice speech for him to make and it would be commended highly on this side. By this simple step, he would make his reputation much higher than it is at the moment.

Mr. Arthur Moyle (Oldbury and Halesowen)

There is not the slightest element of urgency in the Bill. It is being imposed upon an unwilling people by a Government who are in the position of having to provide certain moneys for purposes entirely outside the Bill. This contribution does not derive from any need in the Health Service. It is imposed upon the Minister entirely by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is determined that the workers must pay for the £30 million relief of taxation to be given to those in receipt of £2,000 and more a year.

That is the basis of the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the Health Service. The Minister knows that if one section is to have relief from taxation some other section has to pay for it. In this case, in accordance with their tradition, the Tories have seen to it that the workers will provide relief for those people who receive £2,000 and more a year.

7.0 p.m.

Will the Minister be good enough to be a little more specific than is Clause 6? When do the Government propose to fix the appointed day? Is it this year or next year? I see no hope of the Bill being rejected by the noble Lords in the other place. I make the guess that when the Bill becomes law it will have an appointed day that will correspond with the operation of the Finance Bill this year. I think it a fairly safe bet that the Bill will become law this year if the Government have their way.

I support the eloquent appeal already made to the Minister. Why not accept the Amendment to save embarrassment for the right hon. Gentleman in his own constituency? If the Bill is to become law, let it be deferred to a time when the electors, at a General Election, can express their view upon it and place upon the electorate the responsibility of deciding whether they want a free National Health Service or want to go back to the old contributory system. If the appointed day is in 1960 and not this year, that will save the Minister himself from any embarrassment in his own constituency at the next General Election.

I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that the Government want the Bill because they want to teach the workers that they cannot have something for nothing, that is a Tory attitude that we can understand. It has been part of the psychological approach of the Tory Party to the workers of the country that the only people who can get something for nothing without its affecting their sense of morality are people represented by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. When it conies to the working class, the party opposite believes that there must be some kind of discipline to remind the workers of their obligations. It is this kind of patronage that offends my sense of equity.

If the Minister argued against the Amendment on that score, however, we could understand it, though it is an untenable approach to say that there must be a contribution to make the workers realise that they have an obligation and cannot have something for nothing. But the Minister says that there are financial limits beyond which the country cannot go and that the contribution is required for that reason. To say that we have reached the financial limit in the Budget is sheer poppycock when we are providing, this year moneys for our defence programme which far exceed our expenditure on the Health Service. Does anybody suggest that money required for defence should be taken out of the Budget and provided on some other contributory basis?

Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill is necessary and that contributions must be provided because there are financial limits to the Budget, but that does not read sense when a great defence bill is met in these days by budgetary methods. This is a retrograde and wrong step. When we on this side of the Committee return to power I hope that we shall get rid of the Bill as soon as may be and restore a free Health Service and see that the money is provided by taxation and not by contributions from those who benefit from the service.

Mr. W. Griffiths

I take it that my hon. Friends are moving the Amendment to enable the Government to submit their proposals to the electorate and give them some explanation for their gross deception on health matters at the last two General Elections. This is an invitation to an exercise in democracy of which the Government should avail themselves. I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) was right when he said that the Minister had had this policy imposed upon him. I am sure that it is within the recollection of the Committee that the Minister told us today that he believes in the principle of those contributions and that he is not an unwilling victim of Treasury policy. He believes that this is a desirable way of financing the National Health Service.

The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that as a result of this policy we get a better system of priorities. He keeps telling us that, although it may be very desirable that people should have appliances without charges, yet, within the limits imposed upon him as Minister by present economic conditions, he is able, by imposing charges and increasing contributions, to direct money to what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends regard as desirable projects.

Let us see what the citizens of Manchester would think of it, bearing in mind their recent experiences. One of the consequences of the action of a Tory Minister of Health in imposing the 1s. charge on every item of prescription played a not inconsiderable part in the causes which produced the recent engineers' strike.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. R. Spence)

The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment. He is going a little wide of it.

Mr. Griffiths

I am sorry. I shall endeavour to keep myself more closely to the Amendment. It is necessary for my constituents in Manchester to have the benefits that would flow from acceptance of the Amendment, inasmuch as they would then be able to examine what is happening to the Service in Manchester and see whether they are getting wise administration and value for their money under the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. So far from all this desirable extension of the Service, in the priority that the Minister recognises, taking place, in Manchester I notice that recently the very famous cancer hospital there has had to give notice that for the first time for many years some of its wards will have to be closed this summer and some of its work curtailed. Does the Minister recognise that as indicating a belief in high priority?

The Temporary Chairman

I cannot relate the hon. Member's arguments to the Amendment, which is concerned with the date of the appointed day. Will the hon. Member please relate what he has to say to the Amendment?

Miss Herbison

On a point of order. Is it not the case that we are asking that the date be postponed for a certain time and that we must give reasons for it? The Minister has said that the Bill will help in deciding priorities. He says that that is why he wants the Bill quickly. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) has the right to say why he disagrees with the Minister's priorities and wants to prevent the Bill being enacted so soon?

Mr. Griffiths

I am simply seeking, Mr. Spence, to answer the arguments put forward by the Minister about his conception of priorities and to show that the charges already imposed have failed to bring behind the most desirable projects in the City of Manchester the benefits which would flow from greater financial support. I give one more example. Increasingly, my attention is drawn to the fact that less and less opportunity is given to expectant mothers to have their first child in hospital in the City of Manchester.

We shall put Questions to the Minister in due course and try to extract from him a recognition of the fact that my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in the city regard the cancer hospital, the infantile mortality rates and the hospital for expectant mothers as matters of the highest priority to which we shall continue to draw his attention.

I will say no more. I think that the handling of the Health Service by successive Ministers in this Government in the last few years, and the introduction of these extra contributions for workpeople without the mandate of the electors, is a good and sufficient reason why the Bill should be postponed for the period suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Vosper

I will, first, answer the specific point put to me by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) about the appointed day. It is impossible to put in the Bill the exact appointed day. He may recollect that whereas the income anticipated from this provision in a full year was about £40 million, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected to derive from it this year £20 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should be able to forecast the approximate date that is anticipated as the appointed day.

I was slightly intrigued by the suggested day in the Amendment. I appreciate that 1st May has a particular interest for the party opposite, but it was the choice of year that was of greater interest to me—1960—because it seemed to assume that there would be no General Election in this country until the early months of that year. In that respect, there may be some wisdom in the Amendment.

I was also slightly intrigued by the argument put forward by two hon. Members that it was necessary to have a mandate to enact legislation of this nature. That argument is useful and may have been used occasionally by both sides of the Committee. Will the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) tell me that during the next few weeks we must not introduce the opticians' Bill until after the next Election because there is no mandate for my party to do so?

The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested that I had no mandate, but she referred to developments in the National Health Service which the Conservative Party mentioned in 1955 and which the Government had since carried out. If we are pledged to carry out development of the National Health Service, it is not unreasonable to seek the necessary finance to enable us to do that. To delay the Bill for two-and-a-half years, which would be the effect of the Amendment, would be to deprive the Health Service of £100 million.

Mr. Willis

Am I to understand that the additional money raised this year as a result of these contributions will be additional money for expenditure on the Health Service?

Mr. Vosper

I will come to Health Service finance in one moment.

The logical consequence of this Amendment, if the Committee accepts it. is that the Health Service will be deprived of £100 million in two-and-a-half years. Neither in Committee nor at any other stage of the Bill have we yet been told what is the alternative policy. We are told that we should increase the taxation on the Surtax payers. That money is being rapidly expended in many directions by the party opposite.

I had anticipated from what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said in the Second Reading debate that the Opposition party's pro- posal, published last week, would tell us what was the attitude of the Opposition towards the financing of the Health Service and the contributions. I am none the wiser how the Opposition would seek to replace the financial resources of which they are seeking to deprive the Health Service by this Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

I should have thought that the Opposition—I say this with sincerity—were as anxious as the Government to see the development of the Service, but I find it difficult to reconcile their two different approaches to the matter.

Miss Herbison

The whole tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that if we are to have any developments in the Service in the future the only way they will be financed will be by contribution. That is the only thing that can come from the speech which the right lion. Gentleman is making now, and I am sure it will be noted in the country. We consider it to be very serious indeed.

Mr. Vosper

Perhaps the hon. Lady will listen to the rest of my speech, and then she may want to withdraw what she has said.

On the other hand, the Opposition accept the necessity to place limitations on finance obtained from taxation. Two successive Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer have applied that limitation, and I cannot believe that if ever there is a third Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer he will not seek to place a limit on the finance derived from taxation towards the Service. That is one argument that the Opposition put forward.

As to their other argument, they seek on this occasion to deny the Service what I believe to be a perfectly legitimate source of finance. Throughout discussion of the Bill it has been suggested that I am the servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the measure. It is said that this is a financial Measure and that I am seeking to help the Chancellor balance his Budget. If that were my wish, there would be other easier ways of doing it. I could hold back on the Service. That is my answer to the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North.

The estimates for this year for the Service, including Scotland, show an increase of £48 million over those for last year. Even if the Bill comes into force in the autumn, there will still be a considerably increased expenditure out of revenue towards the Service. I could, of course, do what has been done by the party opposite, impose further charges on the Service. I could curtail some aspects of it.

Previously, I mentioned the dental Service. I have chosen not to do so, because I believe it is my responsibility to maintain, develop and use the resources of the Service as best we can. For that reason I want to see a regular income, and the Government are of the opinion that for a portion of the Health Service to be financed by the contributory principle is not unreasonable. Therefore, I wish to see the continued development of the Service.

I believe that the Bill should be given its Third Reading as soon as possible, and that, therefore, the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Marquand

As to the date that we chose, we knew that by law there must be a General Election not later than May, 1960. That was the last possible date on which the Government could go to the country. We had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have indicated that the Government were going to the country very much sooner than that. We got no such indication from him. We merely got reiteration of the argument that the money must be found somewhere.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we shall say to the country when, and before, the General Election takes place. We shall say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of Commons in April. 1957, that he had plenty of money from taxes with which to pay the whole of the increased cost of the Service, but that he preferred to make a concession to the Surtax payers and impose additional charges on the National Insurance contributors. That will be

what we shall be saying from now until the longed for General Election.

Mr. Willis

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I asked whether the £42 million, about £20 million of which will be realised this year —from which we assume that the date will be in September or October—will mean additional expansion of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman got round that in a cunning way. He said that the Service is costing £48 million more this year. How much of that is due to increases in wages, salaries and prices, and how much is due to the promises made by the Conservative Party when it introduced its scheme just before the General Election for expanding the hospital service? It is legitimate to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Bill were not passed, the Health Service would be cut by £20 million. We have not had an answer, and we ought to let the date wait until we get one.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the other Scottish Ministers is not here. If one of the Scottish Ministers had been here we could have asked some rather more pertinent questions. I dislike having English Ministers dealing with matters affecting Scotland. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends said that it was a good thing, but I think it is a bad thing. We ought to have had one of the Scottish Ministers here.

Mr. Vosper

I cannot give the hon. Member a figure, but I can tell him that the Estimates laid before the House by myself and the Secretary of State for Scotland provide for an expansion of the National Health Service in real terms in the coming year.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 189.

Division No. 108.] AYES [7.22 p.m
Ainsley, J. W. Blenkinsop, A. Callaghan, L. J.
Albu, A. H. Blyton, W. R. Carmichael, J.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Boardman, H. Champion, A, J.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Chapman, W. D.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bowles, F. G. Chetwynd, G. R.
Awbery, S. S. Brockway, A. F. Coldrick, W.
Benson, G. Brougton, Dr. A. D. D. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Beswick, Frank Burke, W. A. Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Blackburn, F. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Cullen, Mrs. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Ross, William
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lawson, G.M. Royle, C.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Short, E. W.
Deer, G. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Delargy, H. J. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Simmons, C, J. (Brierley Hill)
Donnelly, D. L. Lipton, Marcus Skeffington, A. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Dye, S. MacColl, J. E. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McGhee, H. G. Snow, J. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mahon, Simon Sparks, J. A.
Fienburgh, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Sylvester, G. O.
Gibson, C. W. Mason, Roy Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Greenwood, Anthony Mellish, R. J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mitchison, G. R. Tomney, F.
Grey, C. F. Monslow, W. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Moody, A. S. Viant, S. P.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Moss, R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hale, Leslie Moyle, A. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mulley, F. W. West, D. G.
Hannan, W. Oliver, G. H. Wheeldon, W. E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Oram, A. E. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hastings, S. Orbach, M. Wigg, George
Hayman, F. H. Owen, W.J. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne valley) Wilkins, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M. Pargiter, G. A. Willey, Frederick
Houghton, Douglas Paton, John Williams, David (Neath)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Pearson, A. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, N. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Hunter, A. E. Plummer, Sir Leslie Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe) Popplewell, E. Winterbottom, Richard
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Woof, R. E.
Janner, B. Probert, A. R. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Jeger, George (Goole) Proctor, W. T. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Rankin, John Zilliacus, K.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Reid, William
Jones, Elwyn(W. Ham, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Cunningham, Knox Horobin, Sir Ian
Aitken, W. T. Currie, G. B. H. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Arbuthnot, John Deedes, W. F. Hulbert, Sir Norman
Armstrong, C. W. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hyde, Montgomery
Atkins, H. E. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Baldwin, A. E. Doughty, C. J. A. Iremonger, T. L.
Barter, John du Cann, E. D. L. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bell, Philip (Bolton. E.) Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Finlay, Graeme Keegan, D.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Fisher, Nigel Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Fort, R. Kerr, H. W.
Bishop, F. P. Garner-Evans, E. H. Kershaw, J. A.
Body, R. F. Godber, J. B. Kimball, M.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Goodhart, Philip Lambert, Hon. G.
Boyle, Sir Edward Gower, H. R. Lambton, Viscount
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Graham, Sir Fergus Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Grant-Ferris, Wg Car. R. (Nantwich) Leavey, J. A.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Green, A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Brooman-White, R. C Gresham Cooke, R. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Bryan, P. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Burden, F. F. A. Gurden, Harold Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hall, John (Wycombe) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Harris, Reader (Heston) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Campbell, Sir David Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Carr, Robert Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) McAdden, S. J.
Chichester-Clark, R. Hay, John McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Macdonald, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. McKibbin, A. J.
Cooke, Robert Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Cooper, A. E. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E. Holland-Martin, C. J. Maddan, Martin
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hornby, R. P. Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W. (Horncastle)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Studholme, Sir Henry
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn, Sir H. Pitman, I. J. Summers, Sir Spencer
Marshall, Douglas Pitt, Miss E. M. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Matthew, R. Pott, H. P. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus Powell, J. Enoch Teeling, W.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Profumo, J. D. Temple, John M.
Mawby, R. L. Raikes, Sir Victor Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Medlicott, Sir Frank Rawlinson, Peter Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Redmayne, M. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Remnant, Hon. P. Turner, H. F. L.
Moore, Sir Thomas Ridsdale, J. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Nabarro, G. D. N. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Nairn, D. L. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire,W.)
Neave, Airey Russell, R. S. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Wall, Major Patrick
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E, & Chr'ch) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Nugent, G. R. H. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Oakshott, H. D. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Stevens, Geoffrey Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Osborne, C. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Page, R. G. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Storey, S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Partridge, E. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mr. Barber.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.