§ Mr. RentonI beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end to insert
with or without modifications".The Committee will see in Clause 2 (2, d) that a distribution scheme is to be submitted by the Levy Board to the Secretary of State for approval. That follows the wording in the 1920 Act in respect of the Tote Board. It was suggested on Second Reading that, particularly in order to meet the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education, the Home Secretary should be able to correct—if that is the word—the distribution scheme so as to make sure, if necessary, that the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education are properly attended to. With the aid of this Amendment, that would be possible, because the Home Secretary would be able to make modifications to the scheme. In the natural course of events he would of course consult the Board about any modification he proposed to make.I should add that it would be open to him to make modifications about any other matter, not merely in respect of veterinary science and veterinary education. When representations are made to him about what the distribution scheme should contain he will consider whether or not a modification should be made. I think that this is an Amendment which will be generally acceptable to the Committee.
§ Mr. FletcherI am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends welcome this Amendment, but it is worth pointing out that its effect will probably be wider than the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated. It seems that it would enable the Secretary of State, if he so wanted, to turn inside out any scheme proposed by the Levy Board. I do not suppose that he would go to that length, but the words,
with or without modifications482 are capable of very wide application. The Secretary of State could reject a great deal of the substance of any proposed distribution and insert his own wishes about how the levy should be distributed. It would enable him to disregard the wishes of the Levy Board and substitute his own ideas on distribution, because that is what modification involves. I do not dissent from that. I point it out because I think that it has a bearing on the subject we shall be discussing later in regard to Parliamentary control.
§ Mr. RentonThe hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has made a valid point. It is true that, strictly speaking, on the wording I have proposed the Secretary of State would have a wide power of making modifications. In the nature of things, however, it is the Levy Board which has the necessary expert advice at its disposal through the various representatives on it. That would enable the right decisions to be taken about how the money should be distributed. It is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would make nonsense of a scheme originally submitted by the Levy Board, but he might make quite substantial modifications after consulting it.
We are in the difficulty from a drafting point of view that we are dealing with a variety of possible circumstances. We cannot start detailing exactly the modifications which the Secretary of State might reasonably make and those which he ought not to make. We therefore ask the Committee to say that he should have power to make modifications, knowing that that power will be used wisely and that the Home Secretary can be questioned in the House about it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. PeartI beg to move in, page 3, line 35, at the end to edd:
Provided that any such scheme shall make provision for not less than seven per cent. of the moneys available to be applied for the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.In moving this Amendment I am reinforced by what the Under-Secretary said a moment or two ago when he referred to expert advice being given on the preparation of a scheme and about how the money should be used. I stress that 483 in view of the attitude of the Government on the previous Amendment referring to the composition of the Board, when they rejected the idea of a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons being on the Board. I feel that we should write into the Bill what we have put in the Amendment.I shall not make a long speech on this matter, for previously we have discussed the importance of veterinary education and the importance of advancing and encouraging it in every way. We suggest that this should be written into the Bill, especially in relation to Clause 2, as it is one of the main purposes of Clause 1 (1). We are seeking to create a limit so that the amount of money spent by the Board is not less than the amount stated in the Amendment. We think that is reasonable. It is a safeguard to ensure that the Levy Board acts in this direction and conforms to the spirit of Clause 1.
§ Mr. RentonOur advice to the Committee is to reject this Amendment for the following reasons. First, it would fetter the Board in an arbitrary way. The amount of money which veterinary science will get, whether as a percentage or as a total, will depend, first, on the needs of veterinary science as ascertained by the Board. That will be quite easily ascertained, perhaps with the help of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who, I am sure, will not be hesitant in the matter.
Secondly, it will have to bear some relation to the total number of bookmakers and the amounts which it is felt by the Bookmakers' Committee advising the Levy Board—and perhaps, in the event of dispute, decided by the chairman and independent members—that bookmakers can pay. Then the global amount and the amount of the levy will have to be worked out. In the light of that, the amount allocated finally to veterinary science will be ascertained.
7.0 p.m.
If we tie the Board to giving a minimum of 7 per cent., it could in some future years, when the levy scheme is perhaps producing quite a large amount of money, lead to an even greater sum being allocated to veterinary science than might seem to be appropriate in the circumstances. 484 I must confess that I am looking some time ahead, and that is not the most material point which it is necessary to make.
The point which it is necessary to make is that we should not attempt to fetter the Board in its discretion in this matter. It will be a carefully chosen Board of men of knowledge and judgment, who will be able to obtain all the expert knowledge that is required. It will have to weigh the relative merits of the various proposals put before it. There is the further point that if we lay down a minimum percentage for one of the various interests which, under the Bill, it will be expected to foster in the distribution scheme, it would seem logical to lay down percentages for the other interests as well. Surely, that is a thing which we ought not to do when giving this opportunity to the industry to improve its own affairs.
For these reasons, my advice is that the Committee should reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. WiggI was tempted at one stage to put down an Amendment regarding the payment of money by the Levy Board, because there are one or two aspects of racing which I think require special attention. While I have not put down such an Amendment, I hope I may be forgiven for using this occasion to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to it, not only because it buttons his argument about what happens if we try to preserve these special interests. There is one aspect of racing which is particularly dangerous, but which gets little or no public recognition.
I refer to the boys, and many of them are anything but boys, who school National Hunt horses in training. This is a job that requires cold courage, if ever any job required it, and the Racecourse Betting Control Board has tried to deal with this problem, as it tried to deal with making a contribution to veterinary science on common-sense lines. It seems to me, however, impracticable to write into the Bill that a specific amount ought to be given for a specific object. I share the views of my hon. Friend that it would be desirable if it could be achieved, but I believe that in the end it would thwart the objective we have in mind.
I think that one of the very first claims on any money that comes in should be on behalf of the humbler members in 485 racing, who should get more recognition from the fund. I am not posing the problem of the need to help veterinary science, but I think we should better serve the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Pearl) has in mind by not trying to write it into the Bill, but by pressing the more fruitful line of trying to tie up all the various forces at work in the world of veterinary science to make joint representations to the new Levy Board to get as much as they can. I am not posing the problem of the horse versus the man, but obviously in the case of the horse there are some highly developed methods of approach. In the case of the man there is none. This is not an occupation which lends itself to organisation in trade unions and the like, and I hope very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of what has been said in the debate. Obviously, the Government will resist the Amendment, but I hope that the Under-Secretary
§ will draw the attention of the Levy Board to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and will perhaps do me the honour of drawing attention to what I am saying about the need for generous treatment through the National Hunt Benevolent Fund.
§ Mr. PeartI was nearly tempted by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) not to press this Amendment, but I still intend to press it, because of the Government's attitude on the previous Clause. Clearly, we must press this point, because we feel that there must be some provision of this kind. Although there may be practical difficulties, on principle I must still press this Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there added:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 163. Noes 201.
487| Division No. 25.] | AYES | [7.6 p.m. |
| Ainsley, William | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mapp, Charles |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Gourlay, Harry | Marsh, Richard |
| Awbery, Stan | Grey, Charles | Mason, Roy |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Meillsh, R. J. |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Beaney, Alan | Gunter, Ray | Millan, Bruce |
| Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Milne, Edward J. |
| Benson, Sir George | Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hannan, William | Monslow, Walter |
| Blyton, William | Hayman, F. H. | Moody, A. S. |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) | Herblson, Miss Margaret | Morris, John |
| Bowles, Frank | Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Mort, D. L. |
| Boyden, James | Holman, Percy | Moyle, Arthur |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Houghton, Douglas | Neal, Harold |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Oram, A. E. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Hunter, A. E. | Owen, Will |
| Callaghan, James | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Padley, W. E. |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Chetwynd, George | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Cliffe, Michael | Janner, Barnett | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Collick, Percy | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Peart, Frederick |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jeger, George | Pentland, Norman |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Cronin, John | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Probert, Arthur |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Randall, Harry |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Rankin, John |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Deer, George | Kelley, Richard | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Diamond, John | Kenyon, Clifford | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Dodds, Norman | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) |
| Donnelly, Desmond | Lawson, George | Ross, William |
| Driberg, Tom | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Short, Edward |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lipton, Marcus | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Evans, Albert | Loughlin, Charles | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Fitch, Alan | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Fletcher, Eric | McCann, John | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) | MacColl, James | Snow, Julian |
| Forman, J. c. | McInnes, James | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Mackie, John | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | McLeavy, Frank | Steele, Thomas |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Stones, William |
| Ginsburg, David | Manuel, A. C. | Strachey, Rt. Hn. John |
| Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) | Wainwright, Edwin | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Swain, Thomas | Warbey, William | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Sylvester, George | Watkins, Tudor | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Taylor, John (West Lothian) | White, Mrs. Eirene | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) | Wilkins, W. A. | |
| Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) | Willey, Frederick | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Green, Alan | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey |
| Aitken, W. T. | Grimond, J. | Nugent, Sir Richard |
| Arbuthnot, John | Grimston, Sir Robert | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Balniel, Lord | Gurden, Harold | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) |
| Barter, John | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Batsford, Brian | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Partridge, E. |
| Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Percival, Ian |
| Bidgood, John C. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hastings, Stephen | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Bishop, F. P. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Bossom, Clive | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Pott, Percivall |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Hendry, Forbes | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Box, Donald | Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hiley, Joseph | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Brewis, John | Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Bryan, Paul | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Bullard, Denys | Hocking, Philip N. | Rees, Hugh |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Holland, Philip | Renton, David |
| Burden, F. A. | Hollingworth, John | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Holt, Arthur | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Hopkins, Alan | Roots, William |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Hornby, R. P. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hughes-Young, Michael | Russell, Ronald |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, s.) | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Iremonger, T. L. | Seymour, Leslie |
| Cole, Norman | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Sharples, Richard |
| Collard, Richard | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Shaw, M. |
| Cooke, Robert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Shepherd, William |
| Corfield, F. V. | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Simon, Sir Jocelyn |
| Costain, A P. | Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Coulson, J. M. | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Critchley, Julian | Kitson, Timothy | Stodart, J. A. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Cunningham, Knox | Leather, E. H. C. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lilley, F. J. P. | Teeling, William |
| Dance, James | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Temple, John M. |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Litchfield, Capt. John | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Deedes, W. F. | Longbottom, Charles | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Longden, Gilbert | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Loveys, Walter H. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Drayson, G. B. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Duncan, Sir James | McAdden, Stephen | Turner, Colin |
| Eden, John | McMaster, Stanley R. | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Maddan, Martin | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.) | Maginnis, John E. | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Maitland, Sir John | Wade, Donald |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Marlowe, Anthony | Wall, Patrick |
| Farr, John | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Webster, David |
| Finlay, Graeme | Marten, Neil | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Gammans, Lady | Mawby, Ray | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Gardner, Edward | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. G. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Mills, Stratton | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Godber, J. B. | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Woollam, John |
| Goodhart, Philip | Morrison, John | Worsley, Marcus |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | |
| Gower, Raymond | Neave, Airey | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Mr. Peel and Mr. Noble. |
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerI beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end to add:
(3) Every scheme prepared by the Levy Board and approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.I will not speak on the Amendment at great length, but it is a matter to which we attach considerable importance. It concerns the expenditure of money, not the raising of money, for that arises later. This is a question of the disbursement of the funds which the Levy Board receives. In our view, the distribution of the funds between one interest and another raises a number of matters of public policy and in the last resort should be discussable by Parliament at the will of Parliament.The whole question of the share of expenditure between one interest and another is in itself of very great public concern. There are such issues as whether the Board is thought to be propping up uneconomic and unnecessary courses, which is a matter of considerable public policy, and there is still the question, which we have not been able to deal with by Amendment so far, of how much of the Levy Board's money should go to veterinary science, for example. It may be right that we ought not to tie that down too tightly in the Bill, but it remains of great concern whether enough is being provided year by year from the disbursement of the Board to these public services. It would undoubtedly have an effect upon policy if it knew that its actions and decisions in these matters could be discussed by the House—although, of course, they need not necessarily be discussed. Previous experience shows that a very tiny proportion of the sums available have gone to public services.
Since the Bill was before us in its original form, we have made an Amendment that the Secretary of State shall approve the expenditure policy of the Levy Board with or without modifications. He can therefore use, or refrain from using, his power as a Minister. It is therefore important that he should be answerable to us, because he has taken a new power to himself in the Amendment which provides that he can modify 490 the Levy Board's proposals or fail to modify them. This is a power which should be watched by the House of Commons.
In the Bill we are giving very great power to vested interests to do things which, one way or another, affect a large section of the public—all those members of the public concerned with race-going and betting. The hon. and learned Member will no doubt say that the Secretary of State has to approve this levy, and we certainly want that, but it is not enough. We also want him to be answerable to the House and to any hon. Member who wishes to raise any questions, particularly now that he has taken to himself this power to modify the board's proposals
In this Amendment we are not just asking that the Levy Board proposals, as amended or otherwise by the Secretary of State, should be laid before Parliament in its annual report, but that they can be prayed against by negative Resolution. We are not asking that there should be regular or constant debates on this matter. Had we been doing so we should have asked for the affirmative Resolution procedure. What we are asking for is the right to raise the question whether the Levy Board is distributing its money broadly in accordance with what the House regards as public policy and the right to question the Home Secretary about his failure or action in modifying the Levy Board's proposals.
Our Amendment gives hon. Members the right to raise the matter from time to time. Without the Amendment the matter could not be raised at all. The Secretary of State could act in some ways secretly. After looking at the Levy Board's proposals, he could modify them and, without the Amendment, we should not know how far they had been amended or otherwise. This would not lead to regular or frequent debates, but would give the House the right to raise these matters of public policy. It is because we think that this right should exist, even if only rarely used, that we ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. WiggThe Amendment has a purpose which every hon. Member must approve. We must accept that there are 491 certain difficulties. At the moment the system of control exercised by the Home Secretary is that schemes will have to go to him for approval. This was under Section 3 (6) of the 1928 Act. Even after this Bill has been amended along the lines introduced by the Government this afternoon, exactly the same procedure will be followed. Schemes will be put forward by racecourses or in connection with the travelling of horses and the like. They will then be discussed and become approved schemes after discussions and very close consultation with the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee. I do not think my right hon. Friend understands that these schemes are going on all the time. Discussions are going on all the time.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerI quite understand that.
§ Mr. WiggThen we have made the point.
As regards travelling allowances, a bout of coughing or a change in the weather from soft to hard going can affect greatly the amount of money which has to be allocated for those specific purposes. Therefore, if the Home Secretary is to come to the House of Commons with schemes drafted in such precise terms as to be responsive to the negative procedure he will either have to have a date after which no alterations may be made, or open a special department in the Home Office to consider the thousand and one amendments which will be coming in all the time. Some of these are tiny schemes, some are big schemes involving the erection of new stands, and some are schemes involving the reorganisation of racecourses.
Racecourses themselves want the maximum amount of flexibility. At the moment it seems to me that there is complete and effective control inasmuch as the schemes are hammered out on the ground by those who know most about them. They then go to the governing bodies, come back to the Racecourse Betting Control Board and then to the Home Secretary who can object to them if he wishes. The only argument is whether after the Home Secretary has approved them he shall then table a prayer which is responsive 492 to the negative procedure. It may well be that the Home Secretary has some administrative use up his sleeve which he can utilise for this purpose, but there is no doubt that those concerned with the preparation of these things at the level of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will view this with alarm.
It is not binding on the Committee, but it may be of interest for hon. Members to know that the Board has considered this proposal with very great care. It believes that the present method, which has been hammered out on the anvil of experience, should be changed only after the most careful and thoughtful consideration.
§ Mr. RentonI think it is common ground between us that so far as the distribution scheme is concerned there needs to be a measure of Parliamentary control, even if it is of an indirect kind. Some measure of Ministerial responsibility should be engaged. The view which the Government takes is that the only effective control that can be exercised is through my right hon. Friend having the power to approve the scheme and to modify it if, in the light of any representation, he thinks it should be modified. As I said earlier, he can be questioned in the House about any scheme he has approved and about any modifications he has made.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerHow does the House come into possession of the scheme? How does it know and therefore come into possession of it?
§ Mr. RentonThe House can come into possession of the matter in two ways. First, any potential beneficiary which feels that it should have its interests properly safeguarded in the scheme and given a certain amount of money, and which feels things are not going quite as well as it should, can undoubtedly approach any hon. Member of this House and a Question can be put to my right hon. Friend about it. The more formal way in which my right hon. Friend's responsibility can be engaged, is through the laying of the report before Parliament, as can be done at the moment under the 1928 Act, with the report of the Totalisator Board. Such reports, either under the 1928 Act or the reports of the Levy Board under the Bill, can be debated in this House.
493 It so happens that during the thirty-one years of the existence of the Totalisator Board, so far as I am advised, there has never been a debate, nor do I know of a demand for a debate. That is naturally a matter which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind.
I think the difference between us is that the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman would render the making of a Statutory Instrument the condition of approval of the scheme. In other words, as I understand him, he does not wish any money to be spent under the scheme until a Statutory Instrument has been made and has lain on the Table of this House for forty days and either no action has been taken or, the forty days having expired, no action can be taken. That is his view. There should be that hold-up in the sanction of the scheme. We say that that is impracticable. We rely on the experience that has been gained in getting the Secretary of State's approval of schemes under the 1928 Act. What do we find there? As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out, schemes and grants under that Act are the subject of pretty frequent correspondence and so on, between the Home Office and the Board. It is not as though a scheme can be got out before the beginning of a financial year about which it can be said, "That is the final scheme. Please approve it in one go."
7.30 p.m.
It cannot be done. Experience has shown that that is so. As the year goes on modifications have to be made to it at the instigation of the Totalisator Board. Sometimes racecourse executives, having been given authority by the Totalisator Board and that authority having been approved by the Secretary of State, find that it is not just what they need. It may be found that one racecourse has slightly overestimated its requirements and another racecourse underestimated its requirements. In other words, this is a running operation to a great extent, although naturally some provisional budget is always worked out.
The Amendment would give rise to a further difficulty, which I think is conclusive. The amount which can be distributed each year must depend on the amount available. Incidentally, I hope 494 that it is not out of order for me to mention that the right hon. Gentleman also wants the amount available to be subject to prior Parliamentary sanction.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerEven more so.
§ Mr. RentonIt would be a quite impossible position if both the amount available and the amount to be distributed were in detail to be finally subject to Parliamentary sanction as written into a Statutory Instrument, subject to negative Resolution—or, indeed, affirmative Resolution—but we are not discussing that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a degree of Ministerial responsibility, but in the nature of things it cannot take the form of a priori approval. It has to take the form of ex post facto control. I hope that the Commitee will forgive the Latin terms, but they are so compendious to explain the position.
Bearing these considerations in mind and the practical difficulties based on thirty years' experience, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the Amendment was moved I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press it.
§ Mr. McInnesI am anything but satisfied with the observations of the Under-Secretary. I have never known such a controversial Bill where there has been so little Ministerial responsibility and, indeed, so little Parliamentary control generally. I rather gathered that the hon. Gentleman said that Parliament would get to know when such schemes were prepared and when such distributions would be made. He did not say how Parliament would learn that. That is what concerns me.
A scheme may be approved in March. Distribution may take place in April. It may be October before it comes to my knowledge, because no documentary evidence will be submitted to Parliament to indicate that the Home Secretary has approved the scheme and the distribution. If I tabled a Question as late as October, it would be a fait accompli. I should only learn what had been done. I could not make any condemnation of the type of scheme which had been approved, the amount of money which had been allocated, or the body to which it had been allocated.
495 The only extent of Ministerial control in the Bill appears to be that the Home Secretary shall approve schemes of distribution. He shall appoint certain members to the Levy Board and to the tribunal. He shall approve the remuneration and allowances to the members he appoints. He shall be responsible, in a way, for the appointment of the Bookmakers' Committee. Apart from that, there is no Ministerial responsibility and no measure of Parliamentary control. There is no avenue in the Bill which will enable Members of Parliament to learn what the schemes are, the total amount of money distributed, the bodies to which it has been distributed, and so on. That is most unsatisfactory. To that extent, I wholeheartedly support the observations of my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. McAddenI fully appreciate the force of the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend. I quite understand that it would be very difficult for schemes to go forward at the right time if they had to wait until the whole thing had been tabled before Parliament and discussed.
Nevertheless, I do not think that it meets the situation to say that accounts could be placed before Parliament in due time and discussed then. It will be familiar to hon. Members on both sides that accounts are notable not only for what they reveal but, even more so, for what they conceal.
I make no criticism of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and I hope that it will not take my remarks as a criticism. I sought to find information as to how figures were broken down. Twelve months ago my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would write to the Board and try to find out. I have not had an answer yet.
It is desirable that we should have more information about the schemes and the break-up of the schemes into various sections than is so far provided. While I recognise that the Amendment is not perhaps the form of words in which it should be done, I hope that my hon. and learned friend will look at the matter again between now and Report.
§ Mr. FletcherAs my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the 496 hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) have said, the Amendment raises an issue of primary constitutional importance. The Under-Secretary's approach was deplorable. He failed to answer the criticisms which have been made of this part of the Bill in its present form.
What is at issue is this. In the Bill we deviate from the recognised control by the House of Commons over financial administration. The matter was succinctly put in a debate last May by the present Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the whole basis of this method of raising money as being contrary to the fundamental principle that money extracted from the taxpayer should be paid into the Consolidated Fund and paid out of the Consolidated Fund only on a Vote of the House of Commons.
The Under-Secretary has not attempted to challenge the validity of the principle which is at stake. He merely said that it was impracticable to lay these schemes in the form of a Statutory Instrument. That argument, if extended, could be applied logically to defeat all the processes by which Parliament at present exercises financial control over the expenditure of the Government.
It is no more difficult to provide in a Statutory Instrument a scheme for the proposed expenditure of money raised from the public than it is to prepare Votes which have to be passed, year by year, whether in the ordinary Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates, before the Government of the day can expend any part of the public funds raised from the taxpayer and paid into the Consolidated Fund.
It is arrant nonsense to try to resist the Amendment on the ground that it is impracticable. Over the centuries we in this country have established a method of financial control over the Executive which is very rigid, and rightly so. There may be difficulties, owing to our Parliamentary procedure, in scrutinising all the items of expenditure by the Government. The Leader of the House has been engaged recently in devising methods whereby the House can spend more time examining and criticising Government 497 expenditure. If that is important in relation to ordinary Government expenditure, a fortiori it is necessary when money is raised, not by the ordinary process of taxation—through the Budget—but by this independent Levy Board which will be able to raise without any limit money by way of taxation from a special section of the community.
The Under-Secretary said that it would be too cumbersome to put this into Statutory Instruments. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said the same. I wonder if my hon. Friend has ever read any Statutory Instruments. They are laid before the House of Commons regularly.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments I know that hundreds of them are laid every year. The Minister served for a long time on that Committee and will be as familiar with that as I am, and as are other hon. Members. He will know that every Department—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transporti—is regularly dealing by way of Statutory Instruments with matters of far greater complexity than this.
He knows perfectly well that no great difficulty arises from the complicated nature of a subject in putting something in a Statutory Instrument for the approval of the House or, alternatively, giving the House an opportunity of rejection by means of a Prayer. That happens frequently. It has become our established method of dealing with delegated legislation. It is therefore absurd for the Minister to say that it is impracticable in this case.
With what are we dealing? We are dealing with schemes whereby this public money will be expended, and what we want to know within the scheme are the proportions in which that public money will be expended by the various bodies set out in Clause 1, in order that we may have an opportunity to criticise. The Minister has conceded the necessity for some Parliamentary control over the Executive of the day, but his argument was that that control is adequately safeguarded by other means.
He said that we shall be able to put questions to the Home Secretary and have an opportunity to debate the annual report. When my right hon. Friend asked 498 how we shall know what is in the schemes there was no satisfactory answer. The Minister said that any potential beneficiaries can complain. How, when a scheme has been made, is a potential beneficiary to know whether he is in the scheme or out of it? The Minister spoke of an obligation to lay a report, but there is nothing in the Statute that requires the report to set out the details of the scheme.
Let it be further observed that these reports are only to be made annually, and only at the end of the levy period. There is no time limit within which they must be laid, and even when they are laid it will be too late for the House to comment on them or to criticise them. The Minister, referring to the existing procedure for the Betting Levy Board by which it makes reports, said none of those reports has come up for criticism. In other words, it has been found that that machinery to give Parliamentary control is ineffective and valueless. Opportunities for criticism by Parliamentary Question will not arise here, and it will be even worse if, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley the details may be changed day by day or month by month—for which I myself can see no necessity.
I assume that at some stage with these schemes the Government will decide how much will be appropriated to the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and veterinary education. That is one of the statutory objects of dispensing the benefits under the levy. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown a great interest in trying to tighten the provisions of the Bill so as to ensure that adequate appropriation is made for these purposes, but how shall we know that it is made? If the Minister has his way, we shall not know until, perhaps, a year after the scheme has been made how the allocations to the other purposes of the Bill have been spent. That will not be adequate. It will not enable Parliament to exercise its duty of challenging, correcting, and criticising Ministers.
We feel very strongly about this. We feel that the Bill violates a large number of cherished fundamental principles, and that it will be tolerable only if adequate safeguards are written into it to ensure that at all times there is full and effective 499 Parliamentary control over the Secretary of State who is ultimately to be responsible because he is to have the power to modify to any degree he likes schemes laid before him by the Levy Board.
I believe that the only way in which this Parliamentary control can be achieved is by requiring the scheme to be laid as a Statutory Instrument so that anyone who so desires can pray against it. That has not only proved to be an effective method of enabling the House to criticise when it wishes to, but the fact that Prayers are raised against only a small minority of the hundreds of Statutory Instruments that are laid every year shows that the obligation to lay them has, in itself, a salutary effect in making the Government put into their schemes the precise measures they want.
It was either the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who said that it would not be possible to produce all these schemes with the degree of precision required. Why not? A degree of precision is required in the expenditure and application of public money, and this is one of the means by which Parliament can see that it is done. I hope that the Committee will insist on the Amendment.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. WiggI am sorry to weary the committee again, but some of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) puzzle me very greatly. I said on Second Reading that I understood from the Minister of Health that he was a purist—a Gladstonian Liberal—but that I did not expect it from these benches.
I have been in this House for fifteen years, and remember the great debates that took place when we were nationalising certain industries. What were we then seeking to do? We were seeking to make those commercial undertakings responsible to Parliament, but the one thing that we on this side sought was to avoid, at all costs, interference in the day-to-day workings of those industries—
§ Mr. McInnesWe are not seeking to interfere with the day-to-day working, but are only seeking the opportunity of 500 reviewing the scheme as originally submitted.
§ Mr. WiggNo, on the contrary. My hon. Friend cannot have listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said. He said that we had no opportunity of debating the work of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, but that Board's report for 1959 was available early in 1960. Its reports are similar in character, and just as comprehensible and lucid as the reports of any nationalised industry. All the details are there, and if hon. Members were not satisfied they could have sought enlightenment by putting down Parliamentary Questions.
This, too, is a great commercial undertaking, and if the Home Secretary or anyone else thinks that he will get any hon. Member to serve on these Boards if for every action they take they must first go to Newbury, and then wait for forty days, he is mistaken. They will not work on that basis.
As I said on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends seem to be in the great tradition of John Stuart Mill. I am not—I am a Socialist. That is why I support the Bill. This is an excellent Measure. It uses the power of the State to regulate an industry, to give it an opportunity to govern itself, and to be answerable to Parliament in the public interest. I should have thought that hon. Members would have supported that with enthusiasm—
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerIs my hon. Friend now telling us that it is a habit of this Government to introduce Socialist Measures?
§ Mr. WiggOccasionally, yes. Occasionally, by the logic of events, the Government are forced to do so, as, perhaps, my right hon. Friend may one day be forced by the logic of events to change his thinking on defence. There is an irrefutable logic in these things. One cannot argue about the ultimate. Incidentally, the Home Secretary has always been an under-the-counter Socialist, because the major part of his life has been given up to good works. He is always recognised—
§ Mr. McAddenIs the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that we could resolve 501 some of our present difficulties by allowing the Jockey Club to take the place of the National Executive of the Labour Party?
§ Mr. WiggThat is a very interesting thought, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can exchange views on it on some other occasion. What I am asserting is that it is quite impracticable for my hon. Friends to ask the Government to do as they ask. With great indignation, my hon. Friend says, "Of course, the Government have to know." How? Are they to create a vast bureaucracy that will go to every racecourse? Has every scheme to wait for the last jot and comma before it is put forward and
§ action taken, or is the Home Secretary going to have a starting date by which all the schemes must be in, and nothing can be altered? We want accountability to the public and that is done through the tabling of the annual report. I hope that the Levy Board will produce reports as good and as comprehensive as the Racecourse Betting Control Board has produced. I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there added:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 200.
503| Division No. 26.] | AYES | [7.51 p.m. |
| Ainsley, William | Hayman, F. H. | Owen, Will |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Padley, W. E. |
| Awbery, Stan | Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Beaney, Alan | Holman, Percy | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Benson, Sir George | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Peart, Frederick |
| Blackburn, F. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Pentland, Norman |
| Blyton, William | Hunter, A. E. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Probert, Arthur |
| Boyden, James | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Janner, Barnett | Rankin, John |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jeger, George | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) |
| Chetwynd, George | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Ross, William |
| Cliffe, Michael | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Short, Edward |
| Collick, Percy | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Cronin, John | Kelley, Richard | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Kenyon, Clifford | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Key Rt. Hon. C. W. | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Lawson, George | Snow, Julian |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Deer, George | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Diamond, John | Loughlin, Charles | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dodds, Norman | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Steele, Thomas |
| Driberg, Tom | MacColl, James | Stones, William |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter | McInnes, James | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Swain, Thomas |
| Fitch, Alan | McLeavy, Frank | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Forman, J. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mapp, Charles | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Marsh, Richard | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mason, Roy | Warbey, William |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd | Millan, Bruce | Watkins, Tudor |
| Ginsburg, David | Milne, Edward J. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mitchison, G. R. | Willey, Frederick |
| Gourlay, Harry | Monslow, Walter | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Grey, Charles | Moody, A. S. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Morris, John | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mort, D. L. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Moyle, Arthur | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | |
| Hannan, William | Oram, A. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Bidgood, John C. | Bullard, Denys |
| Aitken, W. T. | Bingham, R. M. | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric |
| Arbuthnot, John | Bishop, F. P. | Burden, F. A. |
| Balniel, Lord | Bossom, Clive | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Bourne-Arton, A. | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) |
| Barter, John | Box, Donald | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) |
| Batsford, Brian | Boyle, Sir Edward | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) |
| Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) | Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Channon, H. P. G. |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Bryan, Paul | Chichester-Clark, R. |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Holland, Philip | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Hollingworth, John | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Hopkins, Alan | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Cole, Norman | Hornby, R. P. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Collard, Richard | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Cooke, Robert | Hughes-Young, Michael | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Corfield, F. V. | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Rees, Hugh |
| Costain, A. P. | Iremonger, T. L. | Renton, David |
| Coulson, J. M. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Critchley, Julian | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Roots, William |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Cunningham, Knox | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Curran, Charles | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Russell, Ronald |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kitson, Timothy | Seymour, Leslie |
| Dance, James | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Shaw, M. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shepherd, William |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Lilley, F. J. P. | Simon, Sir Jocelyn |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Litchfield, Capt. John | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Duncan, Sir James | Longbottom, Charles | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Longden, Gilbert | Stodart, J. A. |
| Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.) | Loveys, Walter H. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Talbot, John E. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | McMaster, Stanley R. | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Farr, John | Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Teeling, William |
| Finlay, Graeme | Maddan, Martin | Temple, John M. |
| Fisher, Nigel | Maginnis, John E. | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Maitland, Sir John | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Gammans, Lady | Marten, Neil | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Gardner, Edward | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Turner, Colin |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Mawby, Ray | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Godber, J. B. | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. G. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John |
| Goodhart, Philip | Mills, Stratton | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Goodhew, Victor | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Gower, Raymond | Morrison, John | Wade, Donald |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Wall, Patrick |
| Green, Alan | Neave, Airey | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Webster, David |
| Gurden, Harold | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Oakshott, Sir Hendrle | Whitelaw, William |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Wigg, George |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Panned, Norman (Kirkdale) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Hastings, Stephen | Partridge, E. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Peel, John | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Hendry, Forbes | Percival, Ian | Woollam, John |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Worsley, Marcus |
| Hiley, Joseph | Pike, Miss Mervyn | |
| Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) | Pitt, Miss Edith | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Pott, Percivall | Mr. Edward Wakefield and |
| Hocking, Philip N. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Mr. Sharples. |
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.