§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th January.—[Wr. R. A. Butler.]
§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)I rise to oppose this Motion because, whilst I agree that the Government deserve a very long holiday and that the Opposition are entitled to have a respite from facing the Government, I feel that it is not right or proper that the House of Commons should adjourn to enjoy a Christmas holiday when, as I understand it, six decent, honest people are to languish in gaol over this Christmas for no other reason than that they, rightly or wrongly, decided to send out leaflets suggesting that certain people should take part in a demonstration. I am not a member of, or associated in any way with, the Committee for Direct Action against Nuclear War. I am not in any way—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this seems remote from the procedural Motion before us.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Two close personal friends of mine, men of undoubted integrity, are involved in this matter. The sentence was given today. There is to be another meeting on 2nd January at which other people will take their places in order to distribute leaflets. The law which is applied is a law which has been under animadversion for years and under which the magistrate is demanding an undertaking which he knows will not be given. I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is a serious reason to advance against the Adjournment of the House.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous and helpful, would receive one or two of us later in the day if we asked. May I add one other word, because if I do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I need not interrupt 1476 again and I have no desire to delay the House. We should make it clear that we are acting as a matter of principle and are not associated with any appeal on behalf of these people. We are making this request on our own responsibility and not because they have asked us.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—
§ Mr. LewisBefore my hon. Friend rose I was giving you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House my reasons why I felt it would be wrong for this House to adjourn when we thought there was an injustice confronting some of Her Majesty's subjects. I went on to explain—
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI am afraid that the hon. Member cannot go into that point in detail on this procedural Motion.
§ Mr. LewisI agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not going into detail. I mentioned in passing that six people were in gaol and that leaflets had been distributed. I was going to develop the point that many of my constituents are now actively distributing leaflets who have said that they will be acting—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I put it to you that there is really no reason why my hon. Friend should not be allowed to go into some detail on this point and that it would be in order for him to do so? I can give the reasons in two minutes. This is a matter for which the Government have executive responsibility in two ways. First, prosecutions of this kind can only be taken with the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions and—
§ Mr. SilvermanAs I understand it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point that is being made is that the House should not adjourn until the Government have discharged to the House their executive responsibility in this matter. That is one of two ways in which the Government have executive responsibility. The 1477 other is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is also the Home Secretary, and it is his duty in that capacity to advise Her Majesty about the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.
§ Mr. SilvermanJust a minute. I am afraid that I am not making myself very clear. With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I put my point again? It has always been held to be in order in these discussions for hon. and right hon. Members to give reasons, based on the failure of the Government to act in ways in which we think the Government ought to act, why we think the House should not adjourn until the Government have, in fact, done so. That practice has not previously been broken. I am saying that there are two ways in which the Government could satisfy the House now, and that we should not adjourn until they have so satisfied the House. It is in order (1) that the Director of Public Prosecutions should not institute proceedings of this kind, and (2) that the Rome Secretary will advise Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative of mercy in order to set at liberty for Christmas people who are so far from being disturbers of the peace that their entire action is directed towards preserving the peace.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWe cannot go into the merits of that case on the procedure Motion, which deals merely with the date of the Adjournment. Every point raised must have some relation to the Motion before the House.
§ Mr. LewisYes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I recall to your memory the fact that on several occasions, at various periods when Recesses have been called, debates have taken place, and Mr. Speaker and the House have listened, on why the House should not go into Recess until matters in, say, Africa have been resolved? The merits and demerits of why the House should not go into Recess have, in fact, been debated here for some hours. I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to take any action in Africa or in the Colonies. I am asking Her Majesty's Government to give a safe- 1478 guard and an assurance that if we agree to this Motion to go into Recess until the end of January my constituents will be protected. I am entitled to ask for protection for my constituents and at the moment I am not sure in my mind that they will be properly treated and have their democratic rights preserved.
Why do I say that? Because I know that at the moment they are circulating copies of a certain leaflet which I have seen and in which there does not seem to me to be anything wrong. The leaflet calls upon Her Majesty's loyal subjects to take part in peaceful demonstrations and states that under no circumstances should there be any violence. I want to be sure that if this House adjourns, as is suggested by the Motion, and does not meet until January, I shall have an assurance—if the Home Secretary will listen for a moment—that my constituents who are now actively distributing those leaflets, who have signified their intention of going to the demonstration and who are at the moment going round the country rallying their supporters—
§ Mr. LewisI will try to make it a little simpler for the House. I am trying to explain that there are constituents of mine, and of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friends, who are now in grave danger of having their liberty taken away. I am suggesting that I must oppose this Motion, because if I do not there will be no chance for me to speak on behalf of my constituents until the end of January. Hon. Members opposite may not be concerned about their constituents' complaints, but I am about mine. This is not a hypothetical issue; this is a case of people having been imprisoned for no other reason than that they have distributed leaflets.
§ Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in doing what amounts to asking Her Majesty's subjects to disregard the law, which has already been established by the courts, and asking for an undertaking that the constituents he referred to will receive protection?
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the observations of the hon. Member for 1479 West Ham, North (Mr. A, Lewis), but I am concerned with the question whether they are in order, and I am finding it very difficult to see that they are.
§ Mr. LewisPerhaps I can try to explain again. I am keeping to the terms of the Motion
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday 26th January.I was suggesting that the House should not adjourn tomorrow until 26th January, and trying to explain why. I thought that I had clearly explained one of the reasons, which was that six people are languishing in gaol. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have asked me not to develop that point and I will not, but I have also pointed out that hundreds of other people throughout the country, including many of my constituents, have decided to distribute leaflets. If that is a crime, I suggest that before the House adjourns I should be allowed to ask for some guarantee from the Home Secretary that my constituents will be allowed to distribute leaflets or to attend any demonstration they may care to, always providing that if they commit any felony, misdemeanour or other crime they must obviously have—
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe rights or otherwise of the hon. Member's constituents to distribute leaflets cannot have any relevance to the Motion which is before the House.
§ Mr. LewisIf my constituents are going to be arrested or imprisoned over Christmas, surely I have a responsibility to see that their case is aired in this House? I cannot do that if the House is in Recess. Once we go into Recess the matter cannot be debated until after 26th January.
I am now preparing to explain to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why I feel that I must oppose the Motion. I must do so if only to give satisfaction to my constituents and to ensure that they will have the opportunity, which Her Majesty's subjects have enjoyed for so long, of expressing their point of view, taking part in any demonstration and distributing any leaflets, with the proviso that if they break the law they shall pay the penalty.
I am asking the Home Secretary whether he will show his magnanimity by giving the assurance for which I have 1480 asked on behalf of my constituents, and also saying that since this is the Christmas season he will see that the people to whom I have referred are released for Christmas.
§ 4.46 p.m.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)I need not detain the House for more than one minute. Before we agree to this Motion —which is sometimes debated and sometimes goes through formally—we should be given a little more information by the Leader of the House as to the steps that are being taken, before the ratification of the E.F.T.A. Convention, to provide an opportunity for a further discussion of some of its aspects. I have every respect for the Chair and every sympathy with it, but I want to point out that in the debate which took place last Monday, owing to the fact that speeches were made by many maiden speakers and also by Privy Councillors, only one back bencher—
§ Mr. HirstWith respect, I am explaining why I am introducing this question. I must give my right hon. Friend some idea of the point to which I wish him to reply or he will not be able to do so.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Member cannot raise any question he likes. It must be relevant to the Motion before the House.
§ Mr. HirstCertainly it must be, and, with every respect, in my judgment it is, although I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have now had a discussion of about three-quarters of an hour and if I cannot have one minute it is a little unfair. The House is entitled to know what steps the Government will take before we formally ratify this Convention. Because of this long Adjournment it seems that we may be denied the opportunity of having a further discussion of the matter before ratification. We know that there are some very important aspects which have not been fully discussed.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know as well as I do that certain provisions which are most vital to the textile trade, such as those dealing with countries of origin, have been inserted against its advice. I want to know whether we shall have 1481 an opportunity for a further discussion before we ratify this Convention which vitally affects the whole pattern of our trade and should not be dismissed in one day's debate. If my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that he will discuss the matter with his colleagues I will be satisfied, but I think that I am entitled to make my point. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you felt inclined to pull me up before I had in opportunity of doing full justice to my case.
§ 4.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)I wish to protest because, in addition to having six weeks' holiday, the Ministers representing Scottish interests seem to have departed already. It was almost inevitable that some Scottish grievances would be raised in the course of this debate, and I regret the very bad example shown by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate—
§ Mr. HughesI wish to protest against the House going into recess for six weeks to celebrate Christmas. Six weeks is a very long time in which to celebrate the anniversary of Santa Claus. Scottish Members have a special grievance, because Christmas is not a recognised holiday in Scotland. We start our celebrations on New Year's Eve.
In view of the general state of affairs in Scotland, for which country the Govearnment do not have a mandate to legislate at present, there must be a strong feeling there that the Government should not send the House on holiday for six weeks. I wonder what the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or any other Minister would say if the miners of South Ayrshire decided to go on holiday for six weeks to celebrate the New Year.
We in Scotland wish to point out that several important questions still await answers. If, in the course of the next few weeks, we receive adverse replies to some of the questions we have been putting to Ministers, what is likely to happen? There is one outstanding question. Everyone in Scotland wants to know what efforts the Government are to make to bring the motor car industry 1482 to Scotland. We want to exert the greatest possible pressure on the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other Ministers connected with the economic state of affairs in Scotland, so that the economic needs of Scotland shall not be neglected. How are we to do that if the House is not even meeting?
How are we to put other rather pertinent questions? We wish to put them not to the Home Secretary, but to the Ministers responsible for Scotland. How are we to put our case before the President of the Board of Trade on matters of economic paramount importance?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Send him a letter."] I would not mind writing a letter to him, but I would not know whether it would be answered for another six weeks. We have the grievance in Scotland that, in addition to hon. Members not coming back to the House until 26th January, there are to be another six weeks before we can even put Questions to the Ministers.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)Hear, hear.
§ Mr. HughesMy hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) realises the gravity of the situation.
Then there is the Local Unemployment Bill, which affects Scotland.
§ Mr. HughesI am only pointing out that the Report stage and Third Reading of that Bill have yet to take place. That Bill concerns the whole question of unemployment affecting a very large number of constituencies in Scotland, especially Kilmarnock, Lanarkshire and the City of Glasgow. We are told that the Bill will be the first effort of the Government to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland. Is it to be shelved for six weeks, during which time the House will not have an opportunity of discussing this urgent question?
Then there is the question of the Cunarder. This is a very serious problem, affecting workers in the west of Scotland. They may have to take not six but 60 weeks' holiday if the 1483 Government do not come forward with a definite statement as to whether or not the Cunarder is to be built. I know that there is a difference of opinion. I am voicing not only opinion in the west of Scotland, but that of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, if any of them are here, and of hon. Members who represent the Tyne constituencies.
§ Mr. HughesLet me then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pass to the overwhelming, supreme and paramount question facing the Scottish Standing Committee. If the House of Commons does not meet the Scottish Standing Committee will not be able to continue its deliberations on the important question of the determination of the Government to nationalise part of the transport affecting the west of Scotland. Many questions are being asked in Scotland about the Government's action in this respect. People in Scotland want to know why, once the Government had decided to push forward with a Bill for nationalising transport in West Scotland, they should stop and hold the matter up for six weeks.
There are further questions awaiting the Scottish Standing Committee. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does not like the Scottish Standing Committee, because he has no mandate to legislate there. I confess that these are the only reasons which I could think of on the spur of the moment why the House should not decide to take six weeks' holiday at a time when there are so many urgent questions facing us.
Let me turn to colonial questions and those affecting international policy. The whole question of discussions about the Summit Conference and nuclear arms—
§ Mr. HughesMay I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that according to the Prime Minister the question of the Summit Conference was one to be decided within a few days. Now the few days has lengthened into six weeks.
§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is to take place in Paris in the next few days a very important conference which is related to the ultimate Summit Conference. If we adjourn, as is proposed, it will not be possible to discuss the Paris Conference and it is, therefore, surely relevant to the Motion for the Adjournment to bring this in.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raises the whole question of the Summit Conference, which, clearly, is not affected by the date of the Adjournment.
§ Mr. HughesWith all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was the very last thought that was in my mind. I was thinking only in terms of space and time. How are we to ask the Prime Minister when the Summit Conference is to take place if the Prime Minister is not here, and what will Mr. Khrushchev think of us? He is urging on the Governments of the world the urgent need to call a Summit Conference. Mr. Khrushchev will be beginning to wonder whether Great Britain is really justified in celebrating the season of peace on earth and good will towards men if he cannot get an answer about the Summit Conference.
§ Mr. HughesI am about to draw to the close of my peroration. There is still the question of how long we are to wait before we know whether nuclear arms are to be provided for Germany.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his observations to the terms of the Motion.
§ Mr. HughesI thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would not object to my peroration. I thought that it was relevant to the subject.
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order. Is it not in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to explain to the House why he believes that it is wrong for the House to adjourn tomorrow to 26th January, when he feels that it should adjourn for only two weeks, or 1485 perhaps on Christmas Eve, so as to enable an opportunity to be given for discussing these issues?
§ Mr. LewisWith respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that may be a "Wise Alec" reply, but I was asking a serious point of order. I was asking whether my hon. Friend would not be in order if he wanted to explain to the House why we should adjourn a week later to enable him and other hon. Members to discuss the points which he has in mind.
§ Mr. William Warbey (Ashfield)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I point out that the Ministers responsible for the affairs to which my hon. Friend was about to call attention, namely, the question of the provision of arms for Germany and negotiations on arms for Germany, are at present engaged in business in Paris and cannot be back in this country for two or three days. Therefore, is it not in order for my hon. Friend to suggest that the House should remain in session until next week so that they can come to the House and make a statement?
§ Mr. HughesI think that hon. Members realise what, very ineffectively, I was trying to say.
I wish to thank the Government for choosing 26th January instead of 25th January as the date of our return. In view of the refusal of the Government to honour the bicentenary of the birth of Robert Burns on 25th January, I almost expected that they would decide to call back the House of Commons on that date and so offer a further insult to Scotland. I thank the Government for their consideration in that respect.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)If we accept the Motion that is before us we shall adjourn tomorrow and resume on Tuesday, 26th January. That means that this year we shall be rising much earlier than hitherto and starting again much later. I question the wisdom of that. From the circumstances which are pertaining in my constituency at present, I am quite sure that my constituency will 1486 be very dissatisfied with what the Government propose.
In Ayrshire, we had a visit from the Prime Minister during the General Election campaign. He spoke at Stewarton. He told us that one of the first things the Government would do would be to bring forward a Bill relating to unemployment and that no time would be lost before that Bill passed into law in order to enable the Government to do something really dramatic about unemployment in Scotland. We have had the Second Reading and the Committee stage of that Bill. We had an intervention during the Committee stage from the Leader of the House, who was concerned about the progress of the Bill. He wanted it through quickly, but his intervention very nearly lost him the opportunity of getting the Bill through Committee that night. It showed a great lack of knowledge and appreciation of reactions of hon. Members.
The Government have got the Committee stage over, but further stages of that Bill have to be held up until 26th January. What logic is there in that? It is a Bill which every hon. Member whose constituency is affected by unemployment wanted to examine with scrupulous care. Yet we have had it steam-rolled through the House of Commons and are to go on holiday for six weeks. This is very difficult to understand in view of the promise made to Scotland by the Prime Minister, albeit that Scotland did not believe the Prime Minister. We have to remember that he is not Prime Minister by the will of the people of Scotland. Neither is it by the will of the people of Scotland the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland hold their positions. The Conservatives in Scotland now have 31 seats as against 38 Labour seats. There is one independent Conservative and one Liberal—
§ Mr. RossIt arises to this extent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The will of the people of Scotland, as expressed through their representatives in this House, is not in favour of adjourning the House for six weeks and denying Scottish hon. Members the right to put to the Government important matters relating to Scotland. 1487 I have been questioning the Prime Minister. I went to see him with a delegation from Ayrshire, which included the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] We went to see the Prime Minister about an order for aircraft which probably would help to keep alive the one small section of the aircraft industry in Scotland. The week before last I asked a Question of the Prime Minister. He told me that it would be answered by the Minister of Aviation. I asked a Question of the Minister of Aviation on Monday and got the answer that a statement would be made soon by the Minister of Defence.
I understand that that statement is to be made tomorrow. That statement will tell the people of Ayrshire that the Government, which promised to do so much for Scotland and for Scotland's rights, are turning down Prestwick's claim in regard to the Pegasus aircraft and are giving the order to Canada. That statement will not be made in the House of Commons, but outside the House. We shall have no opportunity of examining it, questioning the Minister and raising the matter, before 26th January. I do not think it fair, even to the Government, that they should be denied this form of justifying their action, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister was willing to see a delegation from the firm concerned, the work people in the firm, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Members of Parliament from both sides of the House.
It is only right that a statement of that kind should be made when the House of Commons is sitting, to enable us to question the Ministers concerned and to get public justification for policy in this House.
A firm in Prestwick draws workers from South Ayrshire, Central Ayrshire and Kilmarnock. A year ago it employed nearly 2,000 people, but already, because of the Government's failures, impotence or indifference, the number of employees is about 1,000 and is to be still further cut. As the representative in this House of many of those workers I shall probably not have an opportunity of putting a Question on the matter before the month of February, Will the Leader of the House look into this from the point of view of the good faith of the Government?
1488 The Scottish Press carries this story in full and is asking what the position of the Government will be, but the House of Commons is to be denied the opportunity of discussing the matter. I want to make my protest in relation to what the Government propose to do. I think it unfair to Scotland in view of the small share it has of the aircraft industry, and unfair to Ayrshire, which already has more than 7,000 unemployed. Once again, valuable teams of designers and draftsmen will flee the country and probably go to the overcrowded and over-industrialised Midlands.
I hope that the Home Secretary will appreciate that we are serious about this. We in Scotland are as human as other people, and like long holidays, but I agree with my hon. Friends who would willingly sit for another week to discuss these matters. We certainly do not ignore the Christian festival of Christmas, but we should like it in Scotland, and certainly in Ayrshire, to be a much more prosperous one for the people who are likely to be thrown out of employment by the decisions of the Government. I think that I should have the right before the month of February to discuss a decision taken by the Government in the month of December.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members from English constituencies fail to appreciate the position we Scottish Members are in. Questions about education in Scotland go to the Secretary of State. I shall not be able to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject of education until about March. We had a debate on roads the other day, but the Secretary of State for Scotland did not even add his name to the Government Motion. Questions on transport and roads in Scotland go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, not to the Minister of Transport. It has been suggested that hon. Members shall have the number of their Questions cut from three to two per day, but in England and Wales there are about seven Ministers who may be questioned, whereas in Scotland we have only one.
§ Mr. RossI agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The general point that I am making does not arise, but the position is that we will not be able to put Questions, whether they be three Questions or two Questions, until after 26th January. Because of the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the programme it means that he will probably not appear to answer Questions before March.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)It is worse than that. We have not had a chance to question the Lord Advocate at all since the Recess, and we are now not likely to get the chance to do so for another two months.
§ Mr. RossMy hon. Friend has also been denied the chance of putting any supplementary questions to express his Lack of satisfaction with the Answer that he has received.
We will be denied the opportunity of questioning the Government for an excessively long time. I recall that when the Local Employment Bill—
§ Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)What my hon. Friend said conveys the impression that only hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have problems. I should like to make it clear that hon. Members representing English and Welsh constituencies have a number of complaints about transport. The last occasion on which Oral Questions on transport were answered was on 7th November. The next occasion on which we shall get any Oral Answers will be in the latter part of February. We also have a justifiable complaint. This is a very poor Government.
§ Mr. RossI am sure that my hon. Friend would have more cause for complaint if the same Minister answered not only Questions on transport, but Questions on education, agriculture, forestry, fishing, electricity, roads, and the Home Department.
§ Mr. RossThe length of the Adjournment and the delay in reaching the Minister of State for Scotland aggravates the dissatisfaction that we feel.
§ Mr. MellishWould my hon. Friend agree that it does not matter who answers, so long as the answers are intelligent?
§ Mr. RossIt was my hope that the Government would continue with the Local Employment Bill and get it through. There is a grave danger that because of this long Adjournment—this is strictly relevant to the point of a six weeks' Adjournment—the educational efforts of hon. Members on this side of the House during the few days that we spent on the Committee stage of the Bill will be wasted. We had to educate the Ministers on their Bill. They were just beginning to grasp the points that we were putting forward when we came to the end of the Committee stage.
This delay of six weeks will mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade will have forgotten everything they learnt about the Bill and we shall have the hard task of re-educating them on Report. For those reasons it is wrong and unfair to Members representing Scottish constituencies—even hon. Members on the other side of the House—to adjourn for this long period.
Let us consider the position of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). It means that if the House does not meet until 26th January we shall not have the privilege of hearing him make his maiden speech until after that date. I mention that because he has been complaining in Edinburgh about the activities of Scottish Members on this side of the House.
§ Mr. RossWe will be denied the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West making his maiden speech fiercely attacking his Government for their misdeeds in relation to Scotland.
I hope that the Leader of the House appreciates that we are genuinely concerned about the failure of the Government to carry out their promises to the 1491 people of Scotland that they would tackle unemployment in Scotland realistically and with a sense of urgency. We do not consider that the Local Employment Bill shows any sense of realism or urgency. The decision to adjourn the House for six weeks shows considerable lack of a sense of urgency, and is contrary to what the Government proclaimed a few weeks ago.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)I am not prepared to vote for this Motion, certainly not until we have had assurances from the Home Secretary on a number of points that my hon. Friends have raised. I will confine myself to only one point, and I want to go back to the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).
One of the proudest memories of this House concerns the day some 300 years ago when hon. Members of the House forcibly held the Speaker of the day in the Chair to prevent the House of Commons from adjourning. Their reason —and it is just as valid a reason today—was that the House of Commons is the guardian of the people's liberties and ought not to adjourn while those liberties are in danger, and certainly not while those liberties are under immediate attack by the Executive.
It is on that basis that I oppose this Motion today because in the incident to which my hon. Friend referred there is involved a question of the most fundamental importance to the liberties of the subject. I am sure that the House of Commons today will not be less conscientious a trustee of those liberties than it was 300 years ago.
The Government—and it is the Government who have done it because it can only be done with the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions for whom the Government are responsible to the House—have invoked a 600- or 700-yearold Statute to prevent a number of people from exercising their inalienable civil rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country. While that situation obtains this House has no right to adjourn. If it did it would be abdicating the most important of its functions.
1492 These people have not committed any act that is wrong in itself. They are not charged with any offence against the criminal law. No charge of any kind has been brought against them, and no charge could be brought against them. The proceedings that have been instituted against them do not involve any charge. The Statute does not require any charge to be made or proved. It merely calls upon the prosecution to satisfy the court that there may be some danger that in the future, at some unknown date, some offence against the peace will be committed. They are in prison today, not for anything that they have done but for refusing to enter into a recognisance not to do that which they have every right to do and which is laid upon them by their consciences as a duty to do. The House of Commons ought not to adjourn until we get some satisfactory explanation about this.
These people are to be charged with being disturbers of the peace. What paradoxical irony that is! They are concerned with preserving the peace of this country and of the world. They may be misguided and wrong, and I expect that there are many people who do not agree—
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. I am afraid that on this Motion the hon. Member cannot debate the whole merits of this particular case. He can advocate that the House should not adjourn until this matter has been debated, but he cannot debate the whole merits of the case.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWith respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I accept that. [Laughter.] I am being perfectly serious about this and I think that the House is concerned with a serious question. I am not attempting to debate the whole merits of the question. I am not a member of this Committee. I would not myself do what these people have done. That is not the point, but I will not advise hon. Members to vote against the Motion without explaining to them why these issues of civil liberty are involved. I cannot do that without going to some little extent—I agree not into details— into what the situation was and what the incident amounted to.
I say that for this Government at this time of day and in the present situation of the world to regard the endeavours of half a dozen conscientious citizens to 1493 call the attention of their fellow citizens to the dangers to world peace of a particular situation as being a ground on which under a 600-year-old Statute they can be called upon to enter into recognisances to keep the peace is as absurd as it is monstrous.
I say that the House of Commons ought not, and I hope will not, adjourn until the Home Secretary has satisfied us that this will not be done. If he does not, I personally am prepared to take my opposition to this Motion into the Division Lobby.
§ 5.21 p.m.
§ Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)I wish to support my hon. Friends who have spoken against the adjournment of the House until 26th January. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who with admirable initiative was able to show the Minister of Transport how to do his job. I apologise, too, to those hon. Members who wish to speak in the important debate which is to follow. I also wish to support, and I do so in a similar way, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
I want, in a spirit of no facetiousness, to impress this matter on the attention of the Leader of the House. We cannot possibly take a holiday for Christmas while hundreds of British protected persons are incarcerated in British gaols without any charges being brought against them. I wish to speak about that matter, but before I do so I want to say something about the Monckton Commission. Because of the energy and enthusiasm of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies we were unable yesterday to reach Questions down on the Notice Paper to the Prime Minister relating to this subject. Therefore, we have not had an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister what the final composition of the Advisory Commission on the topic of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is to be.
It is important that Parliament should know what are the Government's intentions towards this Advisory Commis- 1494 sion, not only regarding its final composition but also its terms of reference and the job which it is going to try to undertake when it eventually arrives in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
The House will be well aware that the native movements of Central Africa have already announced that they intend to boycott the Commission because of its unsatisfactory composition and because its terms of reference are so restrictive. I would like the House before rising for the Christmas Recess to have not only an opportunity of hearing a statement from the Government on their intentions, but also an opportunity of debating this very important question.
The future of 7½ million people in Central Africa is at stake. I fear that if we rise for the Christmas Recess and allow the Government to go on bulldozing Central Africa into Federation against its will we shall have on our hands there a situation which will be very difficult indeed to control. The House has not had an opportunity of hearing from the Government about the final composition of the Commission. We have been waiting for a statement from the Prime Minister. We have not had it. I submit that it would be wrong for us to adjourn for the Christmas Recess until that statement has been made to the House and until we have had an opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister upon it.
I also submit that we should have a statement from the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations as to the action which the Government intend to take with regard to their reserve powers in relation to legislation passed in the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. We have already heard that Nyasaland is a police State. Southern Rhodesia is also a police State and is being bolstered up as such by legislation passed in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
As I have said, I submit that it would be quite wrong for this House to adjourn for six weeks before hearing a statement from the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations as to the Government's intentions with regard to the repressive legislation passed by the all-European Parliament in the Colony of Southern Rhodesia.
We have not had an opportunity to debate this matter although we have been 1495 pressing the Government for such a debate for a long time. It so happens that the reserve powers of the Government only apply for twelve months and, frankly, that time is running out. There are 2½ million people in Southern Rhodesia who look to this House to protect them from the Fascist legislation of the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. The Government have these powers, but they are not exercising them. We submit that we should have an opportunity of debating this matter before we rise for the Christmas Recess.
I now come to the question of the prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North referred to the imprisonment of certain people engaged in the activity of distributing leaflets. I support him entirely in what he said on that matter. I understand that very important organisations, such as the Women's Co-operative Guild, have sent protests to the Home Secretary about this. Again I submit that it is important that we should have a statement from the Home Secretary on this matter before we adjourn.
I also wish to talk about 500 people in Central Africa who are still in gaol although they have been exonerated by the Government's own Commission, the Devlin Commission.
§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)I suppose the hon. Gentleman would release all Mau Mau.
§ Mr. StonehouseI am not talking about Mau Mau. The hon. Gentleman should improve his geography.
§ Mr. BurdenIf the hon. Gentleman could behave as I do and be as restrained as I am in referring to people overseas there would be a much better feeling towards this House by some Commonwealth countries.
§ Mr. StonehouseI am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point I am going to make. Is he really going to be happy over this Christmas?
§ Mr. BurdenIt so happens that I was talking to my hon. Friend beside me on an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman should certainly not interfere with that.
§ Mr. StonehouseThis is an added reason for the House having an opportunity to debate the Government's action. The Devlin Commission, which the Government themselves set up, found that these people were not guilty of planning a massacre as was alleged by the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who, I am sorry to say, has been absent from this debate and whom we would have liked to bring into it in view of his association with those allegations. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is now paying great attention. I wish he had been paying attention before.
§ Mr. BurdenI never pay any attention to what the hon. Gentleman says.
§ Mr. StonehouseAs it would appear that the hon. Gentleman would now like to participate in the debate, I think it would be very advisable not to rise for the Christmas Recess before we can have the benefit of his wisdom in any questions he may wish to put.
I submit that it would be wrong for us to spend Christmas round our firesides with a Christmas tree in the room while men like Dr. Hastings Banda are still in prison. I would like the Government to say before we adjourn what they are going to do about them. Dr. Banda is still in prison even though the Devlin Commission found him not guilty. He has been in prison since 3rd March this year. What are the Government going to do about him? Are they, with their alleged respect for British justice, going to allow him to remain in his prison cell without any consideration for his plight?
There is not only Dr. Banda; there are 400 other people of Nyasaland who look to the British people for freedom, but who are still in prison without trial. I submit that before we rise for the Christmas Recess the Government should tell us whether or not they intend to allow these people their freedom. Further, I must insist that before we rise for the Christmas Recess we ought to have an opportunity for much fuller consideration of these questions than we can possibly have this afternoon.
§ 5.31 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)I will endeavour, shortly, to reply to some of the points raised in the debate. The hon. 1497 Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), notably supported by the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), raised the question of certain persons who have refused to enter into recognisances and I should like to make a short statement on that.
The House will appreciate that I have not had an opportunity to get the full facts, but I understand that a right of appeal lies to quarter sessions under the Magistrates' Courts (Appeals from Binding-over Orders) Act, and that, while that is lying, the question of the Royal prerogative—
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Home Secretary has said that he is not fully aware of the facts, but he may be aware that the people concerned have stated quite publicly that they will not appeal, so he need not bring that in.
§ Mr. ButlerI said that a right of appeal lies. I did not say definitely that they had availed, or would avail themselves of it, because I have not been able to ascertain that. However, I shall certainly pay attention to what the hon. Member says.
I should like to make it clear that if an appeal does lie, and those people intend to take advantage of it, the prerogative of the Crown, exercised by the Secretary of State at any time, would not arise while that right of appeal lies. I shall, therefore, have to find out the exact position in relation to these events before I can give a ruling. I will undertake to go into the matter on behalf of those hon. Members who have argued this point. It would be wrong to make a final statement about it today without giving myself the chance to investigate the whole matter. I will then inform the hon. Members, and reserve any rights that may lie within my power to deal with the situation—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI should like to ask just two questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Royal prerogative of mercy can be exercised as soon as a sentence has been inflicted, and the question of whether the persons imprisoned do or do not appeal against that sentence does not in any way bind his hand, and should not do so in this case?
1498 My second question is this. We are not adjourning today. I know that the Home Secretary has been taken by surprise this afternoon. Nobody would expect him to give an immediate positive and binding answer today, but would he undertake to give an answer tomorrow?
§ Mr. ButlerI was about to say that I would not go further in respect of any power that I may or may not have until I have had a full report from my advisers, which I have not been able to get while I have been sitting here. I would, therefore, communicate with the hon. Members, or take the line suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, according to the circumstances of my investigation. I hope that they will appreciate that, whether or not the House is sitting, I shall remain as Secretary of State, with the powers in my hand.
I should like now to make a general observation, which applies, I think, to all the speeches we have just heard. Ministers will not be on vacation. Christmas or no Christmas, we shall be performing our duties, and will be able to exercise our powers, Christmas or not. Any powers that I could exercise would be available to me. Further, I must tell hon. Members that I shall be available to see any hon. Members at any time they desire.
If they liked to choose Christmas day I should be very sorry, but, constitutionally, I could not object even to such an inroad into my personal affairs, because in matters of importance such as this, the Executive do not adjourn, and must be available at the instance of private Members who wish to make appeals to them. I think that that answers one or two of the points raised. I will, therefore, reserve this question for further examination and further report before I say any more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) asked whether he could be given an assurance of a further debate before ratification of E.F.T.A. We had a debate on the new Free Trade Association only very recently, and all that I can undertake now is to say that I shall, immediately this debate ends, and before any further discussions arise in which I am involved, have a word with my right hon. Friend 1499 the President of the Board of Trade with a view to telling him what has been said by my hon. Friend.
The main impression made upon me by the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was that the Government have an exceedingly good programme, because this is really the first occasion on which he has praised so many of our Measures and said that he wanted them to be enacted at the earliest possible moment. He used this argument throughout as an excuse for the House to sit, so that, by the beneficence of our programme, we could aid the country further towards its recovery—
§ Mr. Emrys HughesThe Home Secretary completely misinterprets what I said. I was seeking an opportunity to amend these Measures so that they would be really useful.
§ Mr. ButlerThe hon. Gentleman and his Friends have done their best with the Local Employment Bill which, as they know, they have discussed at great length. Partly at their own request, and partly at the request of the official Opposition, this Bill was taken on the Floor of the House. Very useful suggestions were made, and we shall certainly proceed—and this answers the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)— to finish the Bill on our return. But to say that we could have finished all stages of this Measure and have had it taken through another place before Christmas is quite wrong. That would have been impossible. Therefore, in tabling this Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess I do not think that we are doing disservice to the causes of difficulty in the hon. Member's constituency.
Another argument put forward by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was that it would be impossible either to impress Mr. Khrushchev or to negotiate with him unless the House was sitting. I do not think that that is the case. The House of Commons is a very valuable associate and concomitant of our foreign policy, but there does remain a certain degree of prerogative in the conduct of foreign affairs, and I can assure hon. Members that there will be no delay in pursuing our ends—namely, the cause of peace and further union between 1500 the nations—if the House adjourns according to the terms of the Motion.
As regards Burns day, it was with particular attention to that event that we decided that the House should take one extra day—namely, 26th January—so that the hon. Gentleman would be in a fit state to meet us on the next day. We would have been very much put out had we found him in any way incommoded, and not able to pursue us with his usual relentless zeal on our return.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred to events in Africa. These have been fully discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to make a further statement, although there is no further progress to be reported in regard to the composition of the Monckton Commission. It was a disappointment to us that the Opposition could not find it possible to join in that inquiry. We do not want to make the position more difficult, but I think it is at least reasonable for the Prime Minister to take a little time before making a further statement. Had we had the co-operation of the party opposite, we might have brought everything relating to the membership of the inquiry to a conclusion by way of an announcement—
§ Mr. StonehouseBefore the Home Secretary leaves that point, will he say what he intends to do about Dr. Hastings Banda?
§ Mr. ButlerAt the moment, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but while the assistance of hon. Members would be valuable, in expressing the emotion which is very naturally felt on such matters, they must also realise that the Executive will still be in harness, and will take any decisions they think appropriate in this or any other matter.
It seems that hon. Members opposite think it extraordinary that we should adjourn for what amounts to 39 days, but I would remind them that under the Labour Government, in 1950–51, we adjourned on Friday, 15th December—which is two days before we now propose to adjourn—and came back on Tuesday, 23rd January. That was exactly 38 days. Taking that particular analogy, I cannot see that we are doing anything more heinous than that Government did. 1501 I do not think that this is a very exceptional move. The average has been about 33 days. I think that we are entitled to relax a little. Coming back, as we did, as soon as possible after the General Election, we have had 41 sitting days. We have had 20½ days on Government legislation, we have given time for debates on the Local Employment Bill on the Floor of the House, we have had three days on Opposition Motions before Christmas, and we have also had four days of private Members' time.
We have quite a good record of work to our credit, and I do not think that this Motion enshrines any new principle or is in any way abnormal. I therefore hope that the House will pass the Motion, and. if so, that hon. Members, refreshed by the rest from their labours, will return in a mood sufficient to justify their existence here and help the country forward with its problems.
§ 5.41 p.m.
§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)The Motion we are considering invites us to adjourn for a period of 39 days, which, apart from one occasion, is the longest Christmas Adjournment since 1939. The only occasion on which there was a longer adjournment was when the Conservative Government was returned in 1951, when we were told that Ministers could not cope with their problems without having a very long Recess. The results on that occasion were not at all
§ satisfactory, and I see no reason to expect that they will be any better on this occasion.
§ It is quite true that in 1950–51 the Recess was only a little shorter, but, after all, it followed several years of beneficent Labour legislation, and we were very naturally somewhat exhausted with our labours, irrespective of the fact that there was a majority of only six in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not think that that argument is at all convincing.
§ The Leader of the House also seems to have the queer idea that so long as Ministers carry on it is all right whether or not the House of Commons is sitting. Let me tell him that, bad as we think the Government are in any event, we think they are a great deal worse when we are not here to keep them in order. If there was any doubt about the work to be done, I think the speeches of my hon. Friends have shown that, in fact, there are a great many subjects which we ought to be discussing. Seriously, no case has been made out on this occasion for taking the extra week's Recess. I do not propose to make a long speech on the matter, which has been well argued out. In all the circumstances, and in view of the inadequate nature of the reply, I think we should now divide the House.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 193.
1505| Division No. 24.] | AYES | [5.43 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Brooman-White, R. | Dance, James |
| Aitken, W. T. | Browne, Percy (Torrington) | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Bryan, Paul | Deedes, W. F. |
| Allason, James | Bullard, Denys | de Ferranti, Basil |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Digby, Simon Wingfield |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Burden, F. A. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. |
| Balniel, Lord | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Doughty, Charles |
| Barlow, Sir John | Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) | Drayson, G. B. |
| Barter, John | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | du Cann, Edward |
| Batsford, Brian | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Duncan, Sir James |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Cary, Sir Robert | Duthie, Sir William |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Chataway, Christopher | Elliott, R. W. |
| Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Errington, Sir Eric |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Cleaver, Leonard | Farr, John |
| Bidgood, John C. | Cole, Norman | Fell, Anthony |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Cooke, Robert | Finlay, Graeme |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Cooper, A. E. | Fisher, Nigel |
| Bishop, F. P. | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Foster, John |
| Bossom, Clive | Cordle, John | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Costain, A. P. | Freeth, Denzil |
| Box, Donald | Coulson, J. M. | Gammans, Lady |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Critchley, Julian | Gardner, Edward |
| Braine, Bernard | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Brewis, John | Cunningham, Knox | Glover, Douglas |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Curran, Charles | Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Currie, G. B. H. | Glyn, Col. Richard H.(Dorset, N.) |
| Godber, J. B. | Longden, Gilbert | Roots, William |
| Goodhart, Philip | Loveys, Walter H. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Goodhew, Victor | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Gower, Raymond | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Russell, Ronald |
| Grant, Rt. Hn. William (Woodside) | McAdden, Stephen | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Green, Alan | MacArthur, Ian | Seymour, Leslie |
| Gresham Cooke, R. | McLaren, Martin | Shepherd, William |
| Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla | Simon, Sir Jocelyn |
| Gurden, Harold | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | McMaster, Stanley | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley) | Smithers, Peter |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Speir, Rupert |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Madden, Martin | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) | Maginnis, John E. | Stodart, J. A. |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Maitland, Cdr. J. W. | Storey, S. |
| Hay, John | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward | Marlowe, Anthony | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Marten, Neil | Talbot, John E. |
| Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Hendry, A. Forbes | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Mawby, Ray | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Hiley, Joseph | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Teeling, William |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Temple, John M. |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Mills, Stratton | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Montgomery, Fergus | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hobson, John | Moore, Sir Thomas | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hocking, Philip N. | Morgan, William | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Holland, Philip | Morrison, John | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Holland-Martin, Christopher | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| Hollingworth, John | Nabarro, Gerald | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Hopkins, Alan | Neave, Airey | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Hornby, R. P. | Nicholls, Harmar | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Turner, Colin |
| Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Noble, Michael | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) | Nugent, Richard | Tweedsmulr, Lady |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Page, Graham | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Partridge, E. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lehone) |
| Jackson, John | Peel, John | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| James, David | Percival. Ian | Wall, Patrick |
| Jenkins, Robert ((Dulwich) | Peyton, John | Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Jennings, J. C. | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Watts, James |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Pitt, Miss Edith | Webster, David |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Pott, Percivall | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Powell, J. Enoch | Whitelaw, William |
| Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Prior, J. M. L. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Kirk, Peter | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Kitson, Timothy | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Wise, Alfred |
| Lagden, Godfrey | Ramsden, James | Wolrige-Gordon, Pattrick |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Rawlinson, Peter | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Leather, E. H. C. | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Leavey, J. A. | Rees, Hugh | Woollam, John |
| Leburn, Gilmour | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Worsley, Marcus |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. H. | Renton, David | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas | |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Ridsdale, Julian | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Mr. Chichester-Clark and |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Robertson, Sir David | Mr. Sharples. |
| Litchfield, Capt. John | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, William | Boardman, H. | Cliffe, Michael |
| Albu, Austen | Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Collick, Percy |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Bowles, Frank | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Boyden, James | Crosland, Anthony |
| Awbery, Stan | Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Crossman, R. H. S. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Cullen, Mrs. Alice |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingehire, W.) | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery) |
| Beaney, Alan | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) |
| Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) | Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) |
| Benn, Hn. A.Wedgwood(Brist'l,S.E.) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Deer, George |
| Benson, Sir George | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Delargy, Hugh |
| Bevan, Rt. Hn. Aneurin (Ebbw V.) | Carmichael, James | Dempsey, James |
| Blackburn, F. | Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Diamond, John |
| Blyton, William | Chetwynd, George | Dodds, Norman |
| Driberg, Tom | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Rankin, John |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Kelley, Richard | Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lawson, George | Ross, William |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Ledger, Ron | Short, Edward |
| Evans, Albert | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Silverman, Jullus (Aston) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Finch, Harold | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Fitch, Alan | Lipton, Marcus | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Loughlin, Charles | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Foot, Dingle | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Forman, J. C. | McCann, John | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | MacColl, James | Steele, Thomas |
| Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh | McInnes, James | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd | Mackie, John | Stonehouse, John |
| Ginsburg, David | McLeavy, Frank | Stones, William |
| Gooch, E. G. | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Mahon, Simon | Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Swain, Thomas |
| Grey, Charles | Manuel, A. C. | Swingler, Stephen |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mapp, Charles | Sylvester, George |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Marsh, Richard | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Grimond, J. | Mason, Roy | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Gunter, Ray | Mayhew, Christopher | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Mellish, R. J | Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mendelson, J. J. | Thompson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Millan, Bruce | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Hannan, William | Monslow, Walter | Timmons, John |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Moody, A. S. | Tomney, Frank |
| Heyman, F. H. | Morris, John | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Healey, Denis | Mulley, Frederick | Warbey, William |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Neal, Harold | Watkins, Tudor |
| Hilton, A. V. | Oliver, G. H. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Holman, Percy | Oram, A. E. | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Holt, Arthur | Oswald, Thomas | Whitlock, William |
| Houghton, Douglas | Owen, Will | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Howell, Charles A. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Willey, Frederick |
| Hoy, James H. | Paton, John | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pavitt, Laurence | Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Hunter, A. E. | Peart, Frederick | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Pentland, Norman | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Janner, Barnett | Popplewell, Ernest | Woof, Robert |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Prentice, R. E. | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Jager, George | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Probert, Arthur | Zilliacus, K. |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Proctor, W. T. | |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Randall, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Darling and Mr. Redhead. |
§
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th January.