§ Lord John Hope
I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 37 and to insert:7.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated, they shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken for that reduction or extermination as the case may be.(2) Thereafter it shall be the duty of the Commission to consult with such owners or occupiers of land, being land where red deer are established, as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, to secure agreement on the carrying out of the measures which they have determined as aforesaid.(3) Where after such consultations the Commission are satisfied that it is not possible to secure agreement as aforesaid or that the 1340 measures agreed on are not being carried out, they shall make a scheme (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a ' control scheme ') for the carrying out of such measures.This is the result of an undertaking given by myself to the Committee to redraft Clause 7. The defects in the Bill without this Amendment, as I saw them, are as follows. First, there is no qualification of damage and, on the face of it, the Commission is obliged to take action even in cases where the damage is slight. The Amendment cures this defect by making the question of whether or not to take action rest on the satisfaction of the Commission. Thus we have tried to deal with the first weakness.
Secondly, the phrase "having due regard to the nature and character of the land"—which will ring a bell in the memories of many hon. Members—is intended to indicate to the Commission the considerations it should bear in mind in determining the contents of a control scheme; that is, considerations such as the carrying capacity of different types of land, and so on. That is made clearer by changing the position of that phrase in the Amendment.
Subsection (2) as drafted obliges the Commission to wait until it is… unable to secure the prevention of the damage"—by voluntary action before it makes a control scheme. This is an unsatisfactory formula in that it might have to wait a very long time before it could prove that such voluntary measures as had been taken were not preventing damage and that no further voluntary measures were likely to be taken. The Amendment makes it clear that it shall make a control scheme if it cannot persuade owners and occupiers to adopt its plan of action voluntarily or if its plan is not being carried out to its satisfaction.
The final defect was that the original draft seemed to cause some confusion as to the sequence of procedure. We have tried to put that right and make the sequence plain in the redraft. It is a considerable piece of redrafting, but there is no change in the Government's intentions.
§ Mr. D. Johnston
The Joint Under-Secretary said that the redrafting embodied in the Amendment was made as a result of a request. So far as I can recollect and so far as I have been able 1341 to check since he rose, I have been unable to find any request from the Opposition that this part of the Clause should be redrafted.
§ Lord John Hope
I said "an under-taking", "not a request". I gave an undertaking in the debate on Clause 7 that it would need a certain amount of redrafting.
§ Mr. Johnston
When the hon. Gentleman said "undertaking" I understood him to mean a promise in response to a request. If he means something else by "undertaking", then I am not sure what it means, but there was certainly no request from the Opposition that there should be any undertaking to redraft this part of the Clause.
§ Lord John Hope
My undertaking sprang from my agreeing to substitute "shall" for "may" in Clause 7 (2), and it was in those terms that I said that I thought I should be able to do that but a certain amount of redrafting of the Clause would be necessary.
§ Mr. Johnston
I accept that. I recollect that when "may" was deleted and "shall" was substituted, the hon. Gentleman said that he would undertake to redraft the Clause. What I am pointing out is that he must not attribute to the Opposition any request that this part of the Clause should be redrafted. Indeed, I am very well satisfied with the Clause as it stands, for reasons which I shall give in a moment.
The second thing the hon. Gentleman said was that the effect of the Amendment was not to change the Clause.
§ Mr. Johnston
The effect may well be not to change the procedure, but the Amendment makes a very substantial difference to what the Commission may do and may not do. I hope the House will understand that the Amendment makes a fundamental difference to the Bill. I will show that by examining, first, what the Bill does at the moment and, secondly, what the Amendment does.
As the Bill stands, the Commission is enjoined by Parliament to look at the evidence and ask itself two questions. The first is, "Has damage been caused by red deer in the past?" The second is, 1342 "Is that damage likely to be continued in the future?". Does the Joint Under-Secretary agree with me so far?
§ Mr. Johnston
If the answer to both those questions—they are both questions of fact—is in the affirmative, the Commission must then go to the owner of the forest from which the deer are reported to be coming and try to make arrangements with him for a mitigation or stopping of the damage. If the owner is unco-operative, the Commission is then empowered to make a scheme. I think the Lord Advocate will agree with me that those are the steps.
Let us look at what happens under the Amendment. The first question is the same and the first step is the same. The Commission must look at the evidence and ask itself, "Has damage been caused in the past?" But the second question which it must ask itself under the Amendment is fundamentally different from the second question under the Bill as it stands at the moment. It is, "Should we take steps to exterminate the deer or to reduce the stock of deer for the purpose of stopping the damage?" Unlike the second question under the Bill as it stands, that is not a question of fact but a question of policy. I am sure that the Lord Advocate would agree with me there.
Following that, and if it decides that the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, only then is the Commission empowered to go to the owner of the deer forest and say, "What steps are you going to take to mitigate the damage?" If it receives no satisfactory reply, it is then, and only then, that it can make a control scheme.
What the Government propose to do by this Amendment is not to change the procedure but to change the questions which the Commission must ask itself. Instead of asking the Commission to answer two questions of fact upon which it would have evidence, the Government are asking the Commission to formulate policy by answering the second question. I feel sure the Lord Advocate would agree with that.
There is no guidance whatever as to how the Commission is to answer the 1343 policy question embodied in the Amendment. We do not know what factors would weigh with the Commission. It is not sufficient under the Amendment to show that damage has been caused and is likely to continue. The Commission cannot act on that alone. There must be some other operative factor, because the Commission has to ask itself, "Should we take steps to destroy the deer or reduce the herd in order to prevent further damage?" There may be many factors, but none is indicated.
Under the Amendment, the Commission might well take into account that X, the owner of the deer forest, is a decent fellow, that the rental of the deer forest provides a substantial part of his income and that the deer form a substantially greater part of the revenue of the area than farming does. It might say that he is a member of the Conservative Party while the farmer whose land is being damaged is not, though that is perhaps rather an absurd example. However, there is absolutely no limit whatever to the factors which may be considered by the Commission in determining the answer to the question, "Should we order the destruction of the deer or the reduction of the herd?"
What the Government propose to do is to abrogate policy-making. Under the Clause as it stands, policy is being laid down by Parliament. Parliament says to the Commission, "You shall act if you are satisfied that damage has been done in the past and that damage is likely to be done in the future." Under the Amendment that is not so. Parliament says, "You must satisfy yourself that damage has been done in the past, and you must then decide a question of policy", because a question of policy is embodied in the word "should". Is that the intention of the Government? If it is the intention of the Government, it is a complete departure from the Bill as it now stands and places in the hands of the Commission a power very different from the one it has under the Bill as it now stands. If it is not the intention of the Government to do that, then I feel sure that the Lord Advocate will advise his hon. Friends that the effect of the Amendment is as I have said.
I conclude from the words of the Joint Under-Secretary that the Amendment is 1344 designed merely to affect the sequence of events. If the hon. Gentleman means that, then I am sure that the Amendment does not embody the Government's intention and that the Government had better drop the Amendment and think again.
§ Lord John Hope
I did my best to follow the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), but I could not see that he established that there was a great departure in terms of policy. We have now suggested:Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated, they shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken for that reduction or extermination as the case may be.
§ Mr. Johnston
I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the words "they shall determine" do not come into operation until the Commission has answered the question whether the red deer should be reduced in number or exterminated and that is a policy question.
§ Lord John Hope
Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what we are saying is, "Here is your yardstick for determining whether to put into operation the policy in the Bill"? Surely that is what we are doing.
§ Mr. Johnston
No, I do not think it is so. I think the Lord Advocate would advise the House that it is not so.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
I hope that the Lord Advocate will advise the House in this matter. It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend was quite right to call attention to the difference between the policy of the Amendment and the policy of the first two subsections which the Government now propose to delete. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Amendment would give effect to an undertaking given in Committee. I am normally served fairly well by my memory in these matters, but I could not remember the undertaking.
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings and I find the undertaking contained in columns 421 and 422 of the Report of 19th March. I had moved an Amendment to subsection (2), 1345 to delete the word "may" and to insert the word "`shall". I spoke very briefly, because I had an intimation that the Joint Under-Secretary would accept the Amendment. In reply the hon. Gentleman said:If the Commission is satisfied that a control scheme must be put into operation, it is clearly right that it should have no alternative but to put the scheme into operation. For that reason, I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I add that the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted, for we ought to give guidance to the Commission, as we did in Clause 6, on the way it should exercise its discretion…I hope that hon. Members opposite will be satisfied that it will not be difficult to make the provision obligatory instead of permissive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 19th March, 1959; c. 421–22.]I hope that the Lord Advocate will advise the House in this matter, because it seems to me, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, that as the Clause stands at present the Commission must ask itself whether damage is being caused to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and then whether the damage is likely to be continued. If the answer to those two questions is in the affirmative, certain action must be taken by the Commission. No discretion is allowed; it must take certain action. It must consult certain persons, whom I need not enumerate. After those consultations it "shall" make a scheme. That is mandatory.
Under the Amendment, however, all this is to be taken out, and new words are to be put in—new words which the Joint Under-Secretary intimated, in Committee, would amount to a slight redrafting in order to make it clear that the provision would be mandatory instead of permissive. As amended, subsection (1) will read:Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality "—the Commission has to satisfy itself that the deer have caused damage—and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number…That is a matter of fact. The Commission has to be satisfied that red deer should be reduced in number—but it may not be so satisfied.
The Commission is an evenly balanced one, composed equally of persons interested in the preservation of deer and in controlling deer in the interests of 1346 agriculture and forestry. One of the people interested in the better use of our land for forestry and agriculture may fail to turn up at a meeting. He may have missed his train, or his car may have broken down. In such a case the landlord and sporting interests may be in a majority of one. Then, no matter how much damage has been done, the Commission can decide that it should not make a scheme, and that the red deer should not be reduced in number or exterminated. It is allowed this discretion.
The Lord Advocate owes it to the House to advise hon. Members in this matter. Will he say that I am right or that I am wrong? Will he confirm what I have just said, namely, that under the Clause as it is to be amended it is for the Commission, having ascertained that damage has been done, to determine whether red deer should be reduced in number or exterminated? This is not picking up something in the original Clause; this is a weakening of the Clause.
§ Mr. Fraser
The noble Lord shakes his head and says that he does not believe me. I do not want to weary the House, but if the Joint Under-Secretary does not believe me, I hope that the learned Lord Advocate will show me in what way the Amendment places an obligation upon the Commission to make a scheme. I can show the House the obligation under subsections (1) and (2) as they stand at present. By accepting the Amendment to delete "may" and insert "shall" the Joint Under-Secretary made the provision mandatory instead of leaving it permissive, as it was originally.
§ Lord John Hope
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the words I used in Committee, but I want to emphasise the operative words. Immediately after sayingfor that reason, I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.I said:I add that the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted…Never mind about "slightly"; that may be an under-estimate. I went on:for we ought to give guidance to the Commission, as we did in Clause 6, on the way it should exercise its discretion.That is exactly what we have done.
§ Mr. Fraser
The noble Lord may think that this is what he has done, but it is clear that this is no mere redrafting; this is a policy change. Under the Clause as amended by the substitution of "shall" for "may", any discretion which had previously been at the disposal of the Commission, to decide whether or not to take action, was removed.
§ Lord John Hope
Surely that is not weakening the provision; it is strengthening it. Instead of leaving it to the Commission either to make a scheme or not to make a scheme—which could have been the strict interpretation of the original words—we now tell the Commission that where damage has been done, and where deer must be destroyed in order to prevent further damage being done, a scheme shall be made.
§ Mr. Fraser
I shall have to speak more slowly, because the Joint Under-Secretary has not followed me.
§ Mr. Fraser
The noble Lord has not followed me, because under the Clause as drafted the Commission must be satisfied that damage is being caused to agriculture or forestry by red deer. It has also to be satisfied that damage is likely to be continued. If it is satisfied on both matters it must then take certain action, and no discretion is allowed. It must thenconsult with such owners or occupiers of land…as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, with a view to securing the prevention of the damage.That is what Parliament was saying in the Clause as originally drafted.
§ Mr. Fraser
I am sorry—but I must bring my remarks to a close. I thought that the Lord Advocate wanted to interrupt and to tell me whether he agreed or disagreed with me.
This is a tremendous departure from what we decided in Committee, and the difficulty is that whenever I sit down I shall have exhausted my right to speak. That is why I wanted to take hon. Members with me while I was on my feet. In Committee I can rise to speak more than once, but here I exhaust my right the moment I sit down.
1348 Although the Joint Under-Secretary has been twice on his feet it is clear that he has not understood the difference between the Clause as amended in Committee and the Clause as the Government now propose to amend it. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter to realise that by the Amendment the Government are leaving the Commission quite free to exercise its discretion and to decide whether or not it will take any action to prevent the continuation of the damage that is being done to agriculture or forestry. If that is their intention it is a great pity that they have expressed it in giving effect to an undertaking made by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee that he would strengthen the Clause and make the provision obligatory.
Now he seeks to remove the mandatory provisions and replace them by permissive provisions. I hope that on further consideration, and after listening to the Lord Advocate, the Government will agree to withdraw the Amendment
§ The Lord Advocate
The phraseology in the Amendment is different from that in the original Clause. But at the end of the day the difference amounts merely to a clearer setting out of the procedure—at any rate, that is my advice. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) made much play about the difference between fact and policy. I cannot see where policy comes into the question. Policy is something broad, but what the hon. and learned Member indicated as policy was the phrase in the Amendment referring to the question whetherthe red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated.In a way, I suppose that could be called policy, but it is surely no more than a question of fact. It is a question whether the facts are such, in that particular area, that there should be a reduction in numbers or extermination.
Under the terms of the original subsection (1) there is the additional condition precedent that the Commission shall consult the owners, and I appreciate, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, that we have advanced the question ofhaving due regard to the nature and character of the land1349 to an earlier stage in the procedure. That is true. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley pointed out that at the moment the Commission starts with two findings in fact; that there is damage to agriculture on forestry land, and that the damage is likely to be continued. Then there is a peremptory order to consult with the owners. At a later stage, at the beginning of subsection (2) having consulted with the owners, there is another peremptory order upon the Commission.
In the Amendment now before us there is an additional condition precedent to causing damage and to seeing whether it is to be continued. We find that the Commission must be satisfied that red deer have caused damage and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the land is situated should be reduced. Then the Commission…shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken…That is how it appears and it is rather a sensible procedure.
The Commission has to do that. Should it find that there is damage to agriculture, and if it thinks there should be a reduction, having regard to the nature and character of the land, the Commission must make up its mind about what measures shall be taken.
§ Mr. D. Johnston
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is a sensible procedure, and that may be true. But that is not the question about which we wish to be advised. We wish to know: is the Amendment the same? Does the Amendment embody the same ideas as the Clause in its present form?
§ The Lord Advocate
It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any new conception of the situation. There is nothing ulterior in this Amendment. It may be that hon. Members opposite think that the Clause was clearer in its original form, but there is nothing sinister in introducing a Clause in a slightly different form. I can assure the House that there is no suggestion here of any basic alteration in the position of the Commission or in its essential duties.
I agree with hon. Members opposite that the phraseology is different, that the order of procedure is slightly different. 1350 But, fundamentally, I cannot see any difference in the Clause as it originally stood and as it will be if this Amendment is accepted.
§ Mr. Johnston
The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the words, "as it originally stood". Does he mean as the Clause came from the Committee and is now before the House, or is he referring to some other stage? That is a matter of some importance.
§ The Lord Advocate
The hon. and learned Gentleman is probably referring to the fact that at one time the word "may" appeared in the Clause and during the Committee stage discussions we put in the word "shall." I was referring to the Clause in the form in which it is before the House after the Committee stage discussions, and after it had been amended in Committee.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Ross
I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Lord Advocate over this matter. I have a clear recollection of what happened in the Committee. All hon. Members who served on the Committee, particularly those who represent areas in which deer have been causing trouble, were concerned about the damage which was being done and the need for action to prevent that damage.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will recollect it was because of that and because we felt that Clause 7 was not strong enough, leaving far too much room for the Commission to exercise its discretion, that it was decided to insert the word "shall" and ensure that action would be taken to prevent damage. This is the whole difference between the Clause as it is before us now and as the Government seek to amend it. In its present form, the Clause states that where the Commission is satisfied that damage has been caused, and that the damage is likely to continue, it will take action to prevent further damage. That is the whole emphasis, and it is absolutely mandatory.
We had a long discussion about whether we should leave the word "damage" alone or qualify it, and we decided that the word "substantial" was absolutely essential. In accepting the word "shall" during the Committee stage discussions, the Joint Under-Secretary told us that, of course, he would have to 1351 make some slight alteration to give guidance to the Commission. I am sure that every hon. Member thought that the Joint Under-Secretary would put the word "substantial" in front of "damage". But he decided not to do that.
It may be clear to everyone today that when we were discussing "substantial" and why it was essential in Clause 6 but we could do without it in Clause 7, that there was a good reason why. The good reason is that the Government have not slightly altered Clause 7, but have completely recast it. They have changed the emphasis from the prevention of damage following its proof, on which the Commission had to take action, and have put the Commission in the first instance into the position of taking a decision about whether or not it should reduce or exterminate the deer. That had already been decided by Parliament, as Clause 7 stands at present. I wish the Lord Advocate to apply his mind to the meaning of the new and amended Clause:Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage…and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area…should be reduced in number or exterminated…Surely it is right to assume that there are three courses open to the Commission. That is the amount of policy manoeuvring which we are now giving to the Commission. It can decide that it is satisfied about these things and that the red deer should be reduced in number. Or it can decide that it is not necessary to kill any deer at all in order to prevent damage. In other words, that the damage can be prevented in some other way. Thirdly. the Commission can decide to ignore the damage which is being done and let it continue. That is the amount of policy discretion we give to the Commission if we admit this change. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether I am right or wrong, but so far as I can see there is no argument about it.
There was originally a mandatory obligation on the Commission that if damage was proved and was likely to continue it should immediately consult the owners. Nothing was said about killing or exterminating the deer. In fact, the Commission could leave that to the owners and nothing else was required of the Commission. In the new version of Clause 7, if the Commission decides it is not satisfied that the deer should be 1352 exterminated, nothing happens under this Clause. In other words, the damage could continue. It might be committed by colonised deer and not marauding deer, and even under Clause 6 nothing would be done.
I wish that the Lord Advocate would apply his mind to the fears which have been voiced, not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but by his hon. Friends, and which caused the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary to accept the word "shall" to strengthen the Clause. A great change is being made which has thrown away the whole protection—
§ Mr. Ross
It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. He looked today with such a jaundiced eye on our Amendments that I began to wonder if he is really cured.
My appeal is to the integrity of the Lord Advocate, to his honesty as legal adviser, not to the Government, but to the House. I ask him to say whether what I am saying is right, that we have now given to the Commission by this change a kind of policy discretion either to decide that the damage can be obviated by something other than control or extermination, or it can be ignored, or the Commission can go ahead and consult the owners with a view to extermination and the killing of so many deer.
The noble Lord has completely blotted his copybook, for it was at about this stage of the discussions of the Bill that he started to grasp what it all meant. I hope he will not take refuge in the kind of majority he can command in the House. That is not good enough. We want him to try to do something to get down to the real wishes expressed by the Committee, that if there is damage something shall be done about it. I am perfectly sure a substantial change is being made here.
§ Mr. Maclay
I am absolutely satisfied that my noble Friend has done his best to meet what was said in Committee. I see the points which hon. Members are making and I have looked very carefully at the words used in Committee:the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted, for we ought to give guidance to the Commission…on the way it should exercise its discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Standing Committee, 19th March. 1959; c. 421.]1353 What, in fact, has happened here is that because of the introduction of the word "shall" my noble Friend knew that he had to make that reservation and there had to be further study to see how the matter would work out.
I agree that, as drafted, the provision is not absolutely obligatory on the Commission to make a scheme. That is for the very good reason that a scheme might not be the best way of dealing with the matter. It would be wrong to say that a scheme must be made. The Commission has to take steps to deal with reduction or extermination, as the case may be, in the way it thinks best. If it does not think that reduction of numbers is the best way, it may have something else in mind.
I do not see that this is anything more than the inevitable and proper power which should be in the hands of the Commission. I hope that the House will accept this as the intention, that it gives the Commission proper powers and that we cannot say to the Commission, "This is the only thing you can do". It allows for discretion, because this is a difficult job. In different parts of the country conditions are different. I think that this Amendment fully implements what we are trying to do.
§ Mr. D. Johnston
In the event of the Commission answering the question in the Amendment—which it must answer—whether the number of deer should be reduced to prevent further damage, what other steps are open to it? It is not open to it to go to the owner. Going to the owner comes into operation only on the
§ operation of the word "thereafter". I think that the Secretary of State would agree about that.
§ Secondly, would he agree that the Lord Advocate, in the advice he gave the House, must be wrong if the right hon. Gentleman is right? The Lord Advocate has told the House that, in effect, the Amendment makes no change from what was in the Bill as it came from the Committee and as it is now before the House. What the right hon. Gentleman said is not that—
I heard the Lord Advocate very clearly, and I think he meant—I am sure he meant—that the Bill which came before the House on Report must be coupled with what was said by my noble Friend in Committee. That was inherent in what he said.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
The Secretary of State says that it was inherent in what was said, but may I draw attention to what the Joint Under-Secretary said in Committee? The final words of his statement were:I hope that hon. Members opposite will be satisfied that it will not be difficult to make the provision obligatory instead of permissive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th March, 1959; c. 422.]This Amendment is making it permissive instead of obligatory. Whereas it was obligatory, it is now permissive. How can the Secretary of State say that this is giving effect to everything that his noble Friend said in Committee?
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 177.1357
|Division No. 94.]||AYES||[7.26 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Diamond, John||Hilton, A. V.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dodds, N. N.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Donnelly, D. L.||Howell, Denis (All Saints)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)||Hoy, J. H.|
|Beswick, Frank||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Blackburn, F.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Blenklnsop, A.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)||Hunter, A. E.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Fletcher, Eric||Janner, B.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Forman, J. C.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.|
|Burke, W. A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Gooch, E. G.||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Carmiehael, J.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Champion, A. J.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Grey, C. F.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hale, Leslie||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Cronin, J. D.||Hamilton, W. W.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hannan, W.||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Deer, G.||Hayman, F. H.||Lawson, G. M.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Herbison, Miss M.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Parker, J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Paton, John||Stonehouse, John|
|Logan, D. G.||Pearson, A.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dicekson||Pentland, N.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|McCann, J.||Proctor, W. T.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Mclnnes, J.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|McKay, John (Walisend)||Rankin, John||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|McLeavy, Frank||Redhead, E. C.||Timmons, J.|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Reeves, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Reynolds, G. W.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Mahon, Simon||Rhodes, H.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Willey, Frederick|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Ross, William||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Moody, A. S.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Mort. D. L.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley VIII)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Moss, R.||Skeffington, A. M.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Moyle, A.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Snow, J. W.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Orbach, M.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Woof, R. E.|
|Oswald, T.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Padley, W. E.||Spriggs, Leslie||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Gower, H. R.||Maddan, Martin|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Graham, Sir Fergus||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Grant-Ferris, Wg-Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Atkins, H. E.||Green, A.||Mawby, R. L.|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Grimond, J.||Medlicott, Sir Frank|
|Barber, Anthony||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Barter, John||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Batsford, Brian||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Nalrn, D. L. S.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Gurden, Harold||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Noble, Michael (Argyll)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Osborne, C.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Page, R. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Partridge, E.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Peel, W. J.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Bishop, F. P.||Holt, A. F.||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hope, Lord John||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Body, R. F.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Bonham Carter, Mark||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Braine, B. R.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Braithwalte Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Howard, John (Test)||Redmayne, M.|
|Brewis, John||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Bryan, P.||Hurd, Sir Anthony||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Carr, Robert||Hyde, Montgomery||Russell, R. S.|
|Cole, Norman||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Iremonger, T. L.||Sharples, R. C.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Speir, R. M.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Storey, S.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lancaster, Col. C. C.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Leburn, W. G.||Temple, John M.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Duncan, Sir James||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Fell, A.||Longden, Gilbert||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Loveys, Walter H.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Foster, John||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Gammans, Lady||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Wade, D. W.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H,||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||McLaughlln, Mrs. P.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Wall, Patrick|
|Glover, D.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Goodhart, Philip||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Webster, David|
|Whitelaw, W. S. I.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)||Woollam, John victor||Mr. Finlay and|
|Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)||Mr. Chichester-Clark.|
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.