HC Deb 28 July 1960 vol 627 cc1973-2005

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

We are raising tonight on the Adjournment Motion what to us on these benches is a matter of principle, namely, the appointment as Foreign Secretary of a Member of the House of Lords instead of a Member of the House of Commons. We believe that at this time in the second half of the twentieth cenntury this great office is one which should be held only by a Member of the House of Commons.

We all know that in the nineteenth century before the full flowering of our democracy the House of Lords had far more power and far more prestige than it has today. Even the Prime Minister in those days was frequently drawn from the House of Lords, and, equally, foreign affairs were then regarded as much more the concern of the Crown and much less indeed the concern of the people.

But the situation has, of course, changed completely since then. On the one hand, the position of the House of Lords in our Constitution has radically altered. It has been shorn, through the irresistible forces of democracy, of nearly all its powers. It has survived, and is indeed accepted by most of us, I think, today, only in so far as its functions are carefully limited.

It provides a convenient opportunity for the introduction of rather less controversial legislation, and so relieves in part the work of the House of Commons. It acts in some sense as a revising Chamber, and it also provides opportunities for debates in which Members of the House of Lords, who are not in any sense professional politicians, can take part. I make no criticism of those who sit in another place, but we cannot accept that the House of Lords is in any way an alternative to the House of Commons. In political terms, it is an appendage and not a rival. It may be necessary —and it is so provided—that a limited number of Ministers in any Government should be drawn from the House of Lords, but it is not right that those should include the great offices of power and responsibility within the State.

This has been long recognised in the case of the First Lord of the Treasury. We know the critical occasion on which that was laid down once and for all—when Mr. Baldwin was sent for by His Majesty King George V in place of Lord Curzon, although most people would have said at the time that, on grounds of quality and experience, Lord Curzon certainly had the better claim. There was no mistaking the reason. It was because he was a Member of the House of Lords that King George V decided, no doubt with the overwhelming approval of the people, that Lord Curzon could not be Prime Minister.

Long before that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was drawn only from the House of Commons. The view which I am now expressing, that the three great offices in the State must always be in the Commons, has also become widely accepted. I do not know whether the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is here, but I discovered that his father said in the House of Commons as long ago as 1919: It is absolutely essential that this House should realise that it alone has responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1919; Vol. 115. c. 1850.] He had good reasons for saying that and there is not much doubt about what they were.

They were that foreign affairs concern the lives and destinies of all of us today. They are not a subject about which it is the prerogative or privilege of a few people to argue. They are something which concern the whole of our people, indeed, the whole of mankind. In our opinion, it is essential for this reason that the Foreign Secretary should be in the House of Commons, so that, through the elected Members of the House of Commons, he can be in constant touch with public opinion and so that he can be here in this Chamber exposed to criticism and questioning, like any other Minister on the benches opposite.

There is another reason which is also powerful. The Foreign Secretary should be in the House of Commons because, in representing our democracy abroad, his prestige must rest on his position at the heart of our democracy at home, in this Chamber. I need not underline the importance of this argument at the moment when we are still engaged in what is fairly described, I am afraid, as a cold war, and in which we pride ourselves, at any rate, on standing for the democratic way of life.

The point was put very well in, the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday which in its leader said: Parliament has always asserted its control over finance, and has always had the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Commons. For just the same reasons, it is now right to demand that the Foreign Secretary should be an M.P. Indeed, unless he sits in the Commons, had made his way in the Commons, it is extremely unlikely he can carry abroad either the ability or the authority that his office demands. The last time this principle was breached was in 1938. when Lord Halifax was appointed Foreign Secretary. I shall return in a moment to the debate which took place on that occasion.

However, the question has been considered far more recently. It was studied very carefully by the Prime Minister's predecessor, Sir Anthony Eden, in 1955. There is no doubt of the conclusion which Sir Anthony Eden drew. If I may, I will quote some of the things he says about this important matter in his book, "Full Circle". He mentions that he had to fill at once the Foreign Office, the post he himself had occupied before becoming Prime Minister. He goes on to say: There was one man who was exceptionally experienced and qualified for the post, Lord Salisbury. He then speaks of Lord Salisbury's qualifications. He says: His Ministerial experience exceeded that of any of my Cabinet colleagues. He refers to the fact that Lord Salisbury had been Dominion Secretary in the later stages of the war with access to the War Cabinet. He goes on: Apart from strong ties of personal friendship, I have the greatest admiration for his mind and character. He says: Against all this I had to set the very serious difficulties which must arise if the Foreign Secretary were to be a member of the House of Lords in present times. The House of Commons would never take an important statement on foreign affairs from a junior Minister. A member of the Cabinet would therefore have to be the spokesman of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons on all major issues. This could only be the Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain had found it necessary to resort to this procedure in 1938, and the relative importance of the two Houses has tilted in favour of the Commons since that date. I would have had to be principal Foreign Office spokesman in the House of Commons myself, a heavy additional load upon any Prime Minister. He continues: I had serious doubts whether such a system could work any longer. There is a certain difference of view and of emphasis in the discussion of international affairs between the two Houses. The House of Lords debate foreign affairs with more reserve and more responsibility; on the other hand, their discussions can be more academic. I was sure that there was a danger of misunderstanding if foreign policy statements, or an important part of them, were made in the Upper House, and if the main debates were held there. On the other hand, neither the Foreign Secretary nor I would find it tolerable if the more important speeches on foreign affairs were made by the Prime Minister in a House to which the Foreign Secretary did not belong. The conclusion was inescapable. I felt it impossible to ask a Member of the House of Lords to be Foreign Secretary. That was Sir Anthony Eden's conclusion. It is particularly significant because it was owing to that decision that the present Prime Minister became Foreign Secretary. Had Sir Anthony come to the opposite conclusion, Lord Salisbury would have been Foreign Secretary. I wonder where the Prime Minister would have gone. But it would be interesting to know what the Prime Minister himself thought about the problem then. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) said in an article yesterday that the Prime Minister shared Sir Anthony Eden's view at that time. He said: Mr. Macmillian himself was one of the most stalwart supporters of this point of view and expounded it frequently to his friends. But then, of course, the question was whether he or Lord Salisbury should go to the Foreign Office. If the Prime Minister took that view in 1955 about Lord Salisbury, to whom after all he later became very indebted, it would be interesting to know why he has changed his opinion.

I mentioned the oppointment of Lord Halifax and the debate in 1938. On that occasion, Lord Attlee—Mr. Attlee as he then was—argued the case against this appointment on principle, on much the same lines as I did earlier in my speech. But all those who spoke, including Lord Attlee, had to admit at that time the exceptional qualities which Lord Halifax brought to bear in his new appointment. Lord Attlee spoke of his great services, his high character and his great ability. This was indeed the general defence put forward from the Government side and by others who spoke in the debate. Specifically. Mr Attlee said this: It would be very difficult for him"— the Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain— to find somebody who was qualified by experience and ability to hold the position and was at the same time a supporter of his policy. Between those who had held the office already and had not been a conspicuous success, and those who were thought not likely to be successful, the choice was somewhat narrow.… The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) argued along the same lines and made great play with the inadequacies of Mr. Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet to fulfil this post. He gave us one piece of matchless irony which I venture to quote to the House. He said—and it reminds me a little of what an hon. Friend was saying the other day—when speaking of Mr. Chamberlain: What is the point of crying out for the moon, when you have the sun, and you have that bright orb of day from whose effulgent beams the lesser luminaries derive their radiance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1938; Vol. 332, c. 861, 869–70.] We have to ask whether the statement of Lord Attlee applies today. Is it really very difficult to find somebody qualified by experience and ability to hold this position who at the same time is a supporter of the Prime Minister's policy? Can he defend this appointment on the grounds that it is exceptional because he really cannot find anybody else for the job? In terms of ability I do not wish to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Home. He is courteous and conscientious, I do not doubt that, but are we really to accept the fact that he is, to use a once famous phrase of the Leader of the House, the "best available Foreign Secretary"? After all, however distinguished the noble Lord may be, he certainly cannot rival the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself. He has had every kind of experience; he was even Under-Secretary to Lord Halifax at that time. A great range of offices have been at his disposal, yet he has not been chosen.

Then there is the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Perhaps he is not acceptable to everybody in quite the same way, but unquestionably he is a man of ability well known in the country who has held many offices, far more offices than the noble Lord and with much greater experience. Was he really not to be considered for this important post? Must we put him down below? One could go on. I do not see the President of the Board of Trade present. He may be a little worried about relations with the new Paymaster-General, but I think we would all agree that he is a man of considerable ability and, even if he has made a bit of a hash of relations with Europe, why should he be damned on that alone?

Even more prominent in the stakes was the Colonial Secretary. I am sure we on this side of the House would regard him as a man of very substantial ability. He again has held many offices. Can we really say that he must defer to become subordinate to the noble Lord who, after all, has held only one major office in his life? Of course, I know it is said that he cannot become Foreign Secretary just yet. It would be interesting to know whether this is a temporary appointment. Have we got a caretaker Foreign Secretary? Is that all it is about? It would be very much simpler if they would tell us if that is the case. We would understand where we are.

So much for ability. In some ways, from a party angle it would be nice to echo the comments which were made when Lord Halifax was appointed, but I cannot find it in my heart to do so. I believe there are men on the benches opposite equally able to hold the office as the noble Lord.

Then there is the question of policy. Do we feel, perhaps, that some of the right hon. Gentlemen whose names I have mentioned would be less likely to support the Prime Minister's policy? That was one of the difficulties at the time of Lord Halifax's appointment.

It is not part of my business to go through the record of the noble Lord, Lord Home, in detail—it would not be right to do so—but I think that it is fair to say that he is chiefly known, concerning the period 1931–1939, as the Parliamentary Private Secretary of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and went with him to Munich. I do not imagine that at that time the Prime Minister quite agreed with the noble Lord's view.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

Did the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Gaitskell

No, indeed, I did not. The Prime Minister pays me the tribute of assuming that my views at that time mattered, but I am afraid they did not. I can assure him what they were. We have something that we can find about his views since then. After all, it is possible that since Munich the noble Lord has changed his mind. As one of the newspapers said, we cannot ignore this altogether. To put in the office of Foreign Secretary someone so closely identified with that particular agreement at a time when we are still hoping to negotiate agreements with the Soviet Union seems to me a trifle unwise. It certainly lays us open to great propaganda on their part as to what is being done over here.

Let us turn to the noble Lord's postwar record. He was not here very much. The last speech that he made in this House was during the debate on the Persian question on 21st June, 1951, and the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunglass as he then was, was to suggest that the British Government should put the troops in not just to protect the lives of British nationals but to protect their property as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame"] This is what he said: I want the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to say that the protection which His Majesty's Government give will not only be if the lives of the British people in Abadan are threatened, but will extend to them if the Persians try to take physical control of the refinery and interfere with them in their legitimate duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 771.] That is what he said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not surprised at the cheering.

One has only to scratch the surface and out comes the old devil. I am bound to say that in present circumstances and present conditions it does not seem to me a very good commendation of a man that the last speech he made in the House of Commons was in those terms. Nor does what he said then give us any confidence whatever in his appointment.

What other arguments have been advanced? The Daily Telegraph puts forward an interesting argument. It says: … It may be that from all the possible candidates, in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, Lord Home is the only one who possesses the qualifications the Prime Minister wants: ability without the urge to strike an independent line… But I cannot agree that this is likely at all. I think that there is any number of hon. and right hon. Members on the benches opposite who could do this.

Then there is the argument of Sir William Hayter, in his article in the Observer, that the Foreign Secretary should always be in the House of Lords because the burden of work is so great. I think that that is a bit of an insult to the present Chancellor. He survived for four and a half years as Foreign Secretary; he even looks quite well. He has not suffered, I think, despite the difficult time and much criticism. He has come through. I will not say triumphantly but at any rate safely.

I know that it is said, "After all, what is the good of having a Foreign Secretary in the Commons because the last one was so seldom here. He answered only a quarter of the Questions put down to him and was here only for a limited number of debates". Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that while we certainly regretted not having his company on a number of occasions, this did not mean that we did not want the Foreign Secretary to be here at all. There is no reason to draw that conclusion.

The difficulty about this argument is that if it is accepted, it means that we must always have the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords. If, because of the overwork, it is impossible to conduct this office and at the same time take the full part in the House of Commons which is necessary, then it is a very serious situation indeed. I hope that the Prime Minister will break the news to us if he thinks that that is the position which we have reached.

Personally, I cannot accept that argument. I do not deny for one moment that the office is very heavy. I think that everybody agrees that the burden of reading the telegrams and so on is very heavy. But I do not think it right or appropriate that the only thing which should be unloaded is responsibility to the House of Commons. There are other things which should be unloaded before that.

That is one argument—that the Foreign Secretary is so important that he cannot do the job here and has to be in the House of Lords. There is then the opposite argument—that the Foreign Secretary does not matter at all, that the Prime Minister does everything, and that everything nowadays is conducted on the basis of the exchange of letters and opinions between Heads of States. This is the argument immortalised some years ago by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in his famous phrase, "Why bother with the monkey when the organ grinder is here?" Other metaphors have been put forward. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has suggested the metaphor about the ventriloquist and the dummy, and there is also the metaphor about the puppet show.

This is an argument, however, which we must take seriously, but we must divide it into two parts. We have to ask, is it true that the Prime Minister has to do the job of the Foreign Secretary or is it simply that he wants to do the job of the Foreign Secretary? There is something in the former argument, but when all is said and done, I do not think that anyone would say that after the war Mr. Attlee tried to do Mr. Bevin's work or had to do it. I do not think that anyone would say that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) tried to do Sir Anthony Eden's work. Certainly the achievements of Sir Anthony Eden before Suez, and particularly at the 1954 Geneva Conference, were quite outstanding.

I do not accept, therefore, that this is necessarily a change which has come for good. In any event, I am sure that although nobody would deny that there are occasions on which diplomatic exchanges have to be conducted between Prime Ministers and perhaps Heads of State, this does not mean that it is right or appropriate that the Prime Minister should run the Foreign Office. The control of the Foreign Office must be in the hands of the Foreign Secretary of the day.

That brings me to the peculiar set-up which, we are now offered. The Foreign Secretary, is to be in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister is apparently to continue to deal with the absolutely major issues of foreign policy in the House of Commons. But on other questions we are to have the Paymaster-General. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am wrong. It is the Lord Privy Seal. These offices change around so frequently that it is a little difficult to remember. I still think of the Home Secretary as the Lord Privy Seal. We are to have the Lord Privy Seal dealing with Foreign Office Questions.

To whom are the Foreign Office officials to be responsible? Are they to be responsible to the Foreign Secretary or to the Lord Privy Seal? Exactly what is to be the relationship of the Foreign Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal? Is the Lord Privy Seal to be under the Foreign Secretary? I gather that the Foreign Secretary says that he is. I am sorry, I mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is. In that case I suppose that what he says in the House of Commons is to be dictated to him from the House of Lords. This is an imposible situation. We do not have dual control; we have treble control, with the Prime Minister sitting there, too.

Incidentally, when we hear that the Lord Privy Seal is to concern himself with European affairs, exactly what does that mean? Does it mean that the whole of the responsibilities for negotiating about economic affairs with Europe, such as the Common Market, will be taken away from the President of the Board of Trade? Is he regarded as having failed so completely that it can no longer be left with him? Where does the Chancellor of the Exchequer come into this? Is not he concerned with our relations with Europe? We need a little explanation. Finally, if indeed this is the case and we have to record that it does not really matter, because the Foreign Secretary is now a puppet, I would prefer to have the puppet show in the House of Commons.

When the appointment was first foreshadowed in the Press, the idea was not universally welcomed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps some of them did not share the Prime Minister's respect for the great patrician families. Perhaps they did not quite understand his desire to play the special Trollope rôle which he has designed for himself They may even have preferred Sir Anthony Eden's attitude on this question. There was even talk of a revolt. The Prime Minister had no difficulty in quelling the revolt. They will all dutifully vote for him tonight—we do not doubt that—but let the Prime Minister remember this. He has the power, like any Prime Minister, to oblige his friends to vote by threatening them with worse things.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)


Mr. Gaitskell

But in the long run he will ignore at his peril the feelings of the House of Commons as a whole. This appointment will bring no credit to the Conservative Party, the Government or the Prime Minister. It is unnecessary and unwise. It is constitutionally objectionable and will not be good for the conduct of our affairs in the world. For these reasons, we shall certainly divide the House on the Adjournment tonight.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I have always been led to believe that politics is supposed to be the art of the possible. I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition thinks he can possibly achieve by the speech to which we have just listened. Judging by the beatific smile with which he greeted us all when he rose to speak, I suppose that the object of the exercise was achieved at that moment by the great cheer of support which he got from his own side. I do not recollect having listened, since I became a Member of the House, to a very much cheaper speech than he made tonight.

The right hon. Gentleman delivered a barb at the Leader of the House. On the subject of Abadan, I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that when Mr. Attlee, as he then was, chose Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, as his Foreign Secretary, it killed Mr. Morrison for ever. No shabbier treatment was ever accorded to a former Foreign Secretary and a former Home Secretary than that accorded by Mr. Attlee to the former right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, as he than was, now Lord Morrison. The right hon. Gentleman delivered a cheap barb. What is so particularly interesting on reading Lord Morrison's memoirs of the Abadan incident is that one learns that he was one of the very few members of the Cabinet who wanted to send troops to Abadan. It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman now to criticise Lord Dunglass, as he then was, now Lord Home, for having wanted to do the same thing.

The right hon. Gentleman must, by his speech, have shown beyond all doubt that he has lost all hope of ever becoming Prime Minister himself. I say that very largely because of something reported in the Guardian this morning, when Mr. Morgan Phillips comes into the picture again. This is what I understand the National Executive of the Labour Party is now to try to get approved by the party. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen to this, because it is very important. This is what the Executive apparently wants to be approved by the Labour Party conference: The parliamentary party could not maintain its position in the country if it could be demonstrated that it was at any time, or in any way, subject to dictation from an outside body, which"—

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

The House of Lords.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

—"however representative of the party, could not be regarded as representative of the country.

Hon. Members


Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I thought that hon. Members would jeer a little when they heard that. I ask the Leader of the Opposition this question quite seriously. If he had been Prime Minister today, and had selected a Cabinet round him, would he, no matter what the opposition before him had tried to do, have given way? [Interruption.] I fully understand the objections that hon. Members have to the Prime Minister's appointment. I fully understand that. and I know that they sincerely think that it is wrong.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek) rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Hon. Members know me well enough to know that I would give way, but time is very short tonight.

I do not for a moment dispute the sincerity with which hon. Members opposite hold the views they do. What I do say to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, however, is that every Prime Minister—and he agreed about this matter two days ago, when I raised it with the Leader of the House—must have the right to select the men he thinks most fitted to hold the job. It is not the prerogative of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or any part of Parliament to dispute that right. They may criticise the decisions he makes, and this is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman what he really thinks he could possibly achieve by tonight's effort.

Is not one of the inevitable effects of what he said tonight not to change the Prime Minister's decision—for he knows that he will not do that, and he also knows that if he were the Prime Minister and had taken this decision, he would not change his mind, either—but possibly to lower the reputation of the British Foreign Secretary?

have been greatly interrupted in my speech. I had much else I wanted to say, but perhaps I may conclude—[Interruption.] I promised to take only ten minutes, and the Opposition have taken up five minutes in interruptions, but perhaps I may say this. There are two questions which all those who have doubts about the decision should ask themselves. The first question is: do we or do we not believe in a bicameral Parliamentary system? If we do —and I for one, do, although I know that hon. Members opposite sincerely disagree with me—we must be prepared to follow it through to its logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion is that because another place, however differently composed, is just as much part of Parliament as we are in this House—[Hon. Members: "No."]—there is no constitutional impropriety in the Foreign Secretary being appointed in the House of Lords. There is no constitutional impropriety whatsoever. Hon. Members who object to the appointment should have the courage of their own convictions, go right through and say, "Very well, let us alter or abolish the other House." But, if they accept the present House as it is, there is no constitutional reason whatever why the Foreign Secretary should not be a member of another place.

The second question that hon. Members ought to ask themselves is: what is the purpose of having a Foreign Secretary at all? The object of the Foreign Secretary is not to speak to the House of Commons; his object is to speak for Britain in the world. Hon. Members opposite may think themselves the sole repository of wisdom, but I do not think that the country does, and I do not think that the world does. What matters to me is not where the Foreign Secretary sits, but whether he is the right man.

If one judges Lord Home by what he has done for the Commonwealth countries, if one realises that he has steered the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, at their conference in London, safely between the Scylla of apartheid and the Charybdis of coloured Pan-African republicanism on the other, I say that that man, above all others, has qualified himself to hold the post of Foreign Secretary. It ill-becomes the Leader of the Opposition to introduce this debate tonight, knowing perfectly well that he could not possibly change the decision, and that its only effect would be to lower the reputation of the Foreign Secretary in the world.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I agree with two sentences uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). He said that the duty of the Foreign Secretary is to speak to the world. I agree—but for what he says and for what he does he is answerable to the House of Commons. I also agree that the Prime Minister has the right to choose his colleagues, but it is also the right, the privilege and the duty of the House of Commons to criticise the choice.

In my opinion, in making this appointment, the Prime Minister has taken a retrograde step. How far back he has gone, I do not know. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I have tried to find out what are the duties that the Prime Minister has now imposed on the Lord Privy Seal. To me, it looks as though he has gone as far back as pre-1783, the days when Charles James Fox put an end to two Foreign Secretaries, one for the North and one for the South.

The whole position has changed in the last century. Even in the early days of this century, it was always the custom that the Foreign Secretary should be a Member of the House of Lords. There were some very great names—men who left great reputations behind them, and justly so, men like Lord Salisbury, afterwards the Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, Lord Lansdowne and even, in later stages, Lord Curzon, although for a good part of his time he was not allowed to act as Foreign Secretary—the Prime Minister himself wanted to do that.

After that, from 1906, it began to be recognised that the Foreign Secretary should be answerable here in this House. There were two exceptions, in quite exceptional conditions: that was when. Lord Reading occupied that position in the Foreign Office for a short while, during that short period of a Coalition Government in 1931, and again later when Lord Halifax occupied that position, again under rather extraordinary circumstances, because of the resignation of the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If I may say so, neither of those two noble Lords added to the great and just repution that they had built elsewhere.

Since 1945 there has come a revolutionary change, the biggest change we have ever known in the history of this House. The position of the Foreign Secretary has become one in which his responsibility is greater than that ever undertaken by any of his predecessors. Think what a change there has been from the old days, the spacious days, When the Foreign Secretary never left the Foreign Office. If anybody wanted to consult him, such a person would have to make his way to the Foreign Office and after a while be admitted into the presence.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

A very good idea.

Mr. Davies

I would remind the noble Lord that at that time the word of Britain was practically unchallenged. The Foreign Secretary could afford to take that position. But that has not been the case since 1945. Think of all the conferences that he has to attend regularly—N.A.T.O., United Nations and S.E.A.T.O. conferences, all going on continuously.

If the Prime Minister and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to say so, when the Prime Minister asked five of us to consider the position of some of his overworked Ministers, I remember the then Foreign Secretary telling us that in 1957 he was absent from the kingdom on the business of the Foreign Office for 117 days—more than half his time. During that period there was an accumulation of dispatch boxes that must really have overwhelmed him. There is no doubt about that. What is more, twice a week there were Questions to him, and they were not so much questions as almost a challenge of policy.

His is not the only position where these changes have taken place. I think the Prime Minister himself is bearing a bigger burden than was borne by any of his predecessors. Would it be suggested that in order to relieve the Prime Minister he should take his place in the House of Lords? That was decided as long ago as 1923 or 1924 once for all. The advice was tendered to His Majesty, and was accepted, that the Prime Minister's place was in this House, on the Front Bench. I do not think the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will get very much relief. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer of old had to do was to prepare his Budget and then see the Finance Bill through. Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is called upon to attend conferences here, there and everywhere. Is it to be suggested that he also, if he is overworked, should depart from this Chamber and go to another place?

If relief has to be given to the occupant of the great office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the relief ought not to take the form of removing him from that Dispatch Box. There is a tremendous burden upon both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary today. The world is a much smaller place. Both Ministers are in constant touch with the Governments of other countries, and they have to bear the great responsibility of maintaining the peace of the world as much as they possibly can. If I may say so, both the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have done manful work in discharging that great duty. Nevertheless, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary ought to be answerable in this Chamber for what they say and do elsewhere. There is no other place where they should do it.

I do not understand the position of the Lord Privy Seal. It is the Foreign Secretary who conducts the negotiations. He knows what is said and he knows what he replies. All he can do is to repeat to the Lord Privy Seal what has happened, and then the Lord Privy Seal will stand at the Dispatch Box, like a gramophone, repeating it in this Chamber. There is, however, one difference between cross-examining the Lord Privy Seal and cross-examining the Foreign Secretary. One cannot cross-examine a gramophone.

I sincerely and deeply regret that the Prime Minister has taken this step at this particular time, when the whole world is so anxious, when the peril is so great, greater, I fear, than it has been during the last twenty years. It is this House which is responsible to the people and it is to this House and this House alone that the Foreign Secretary should be answerable.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Apprehensions about these Ministerial arrangements are not confined to members of the Opposition. There is, evidently, a good deal of controversy among people of all parties and of no party as to the wisdom of the present arrangements in the critical state of international affairs.

I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a very pointed question about the events of the last ten days. My political memory goes back only for about a quarter of a century, a good deal less than that of my right hon. Friend, but historical researches lead me to the conclusion that never before has there been such a precise forecast of principal Ministerial offices before their announcement by the Prime Minister. Number 10, Downing Street, today looks like a very leaky colander.

I thought it quite incredible that the Guardian, about ten days ago, could have reliably forecast the name of the present Foreign Secretary. Indeed, that forecast was received with incredulity by the majority of my hon. Friends and myself. But, as time went on, more and more newspapers—[An HON. MEMBER: "Got used to it."]—got used to it or confirmed that it was correct, until, last weekend, we had the extraordinary situation of the names of nearly all the new holders of Cabinet offices appearing, reliably published in national newspapers.

Was it a coincidence that a distinguished former member of the Establishment. Sir William Hayter, wrote an article in last Sunday's Observer lauding the principle of having the Foreign Secretary in another place? I am not fond of arrangements of that kind. I believe that forthcoming Ministerial offices should be safeguarded with the same privacies and secrecies which are applied to, for example, a Budget statement. I hope that next April we shall not have my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dropping a few inspired leaks to test public opinion or trailing a coat to find out what would be public reaction. I deprecate what has been said and done in the last few days, for I believe that the Ministerial changes should have first become known, not only to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords but to the whole world, when the Prime Minister decided to announce them officially.

As to the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it would be a stupendous impertinence on my part if I did not confess at once that the sole prerogative rests with the Prime Minister as to who his Ministers shall be, but I am sure that he would not expect me to refrain from commenting adversely upon a decision as to the holder of a particular portfolio, when I consider it not to be a judicious appointment. There is no constitutional objection—I do not use the word "constitutional" literally, for there is no British Constitution—to the Foreign Secretary sitting in the House of Lords, but, in present circumstances, I gravely doubt whether it is politically desirable. I am quite confident that the constituents I represent in Kidderminster, a marginal seat—

Captain Richard Pilkington (Poole)

Surely not.

Mr. Nabarro

It was held by the party opposite between 1945 and 1950. It is not a safe Conservative seat. My constituents are not very happy about this. What they are unhappy about—and I have every right to report the views of my constituents—is that the Foreign Secretary cannot sit where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sitting at this moment and be rigorously and relentlessly cross-examined by myself on his policies and decisions. [Laughter.] I am sorry that that should be greeted with hilarity. Surely what I have said is of the essence of Parliamentary democracy.

I am concerned only that the Foreign Secretary should be a man of the greatest stature who is available from our midst in either House of Parliament. I have said that, in my opinion, it is politically undesirable that he should be a Member of the House of Lords. But if it is the Prime Minister's view that there is no equal of Lord Home in diplomacy and in international negotiations and affairs, I bow at once to the superior wisdom and perspicacity of the Prime Minister. I would not, of course, question his judgment. I can only express my own view. My own view is that the Treasury Bench is strewn with much greater talent which could be called upon.

Hon. Members


Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

Order be bothered!

Mr. Nabarro

It has been written in national newspapers such as the Observer that the Foreign Secretary is so overburdened with work that he must be relieved of constituency responsibilities and day-to-day House of Commons' affairs, by sitting in another place.

What is the logical conclusion to be drawn from a statement of that kind? Surely, it is not suggested that the work of the Foreign Office in the next few years will get less. If the work of the Foreign Office is so onerous today as to require the Foreign Secretary to be relieved of his constituency responsibilities by sitting in another place and relieved of day-to-day Parliamentary tedium, the successors of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will call this precedent in aid for posterity and say that, for ever and a day, the Foreign Secretary shall sit in the House of Lords. That is a state of affairs which is anathema to me. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at any time be members of the House of Lords.

I make this additional comment in winding up. My right hon. Friend has made this decision and it is irrevocable. This evening's Motion is a Motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. It is nothing else. Parodying my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I take the view that the present Prime Minister is the best Prime Minister we have.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies (Rhondda, East)

About turn.

Mr. Nabarro

If I construed the present situation about the Foreign Secretary as anything but a temporary aberration on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there might be some sort of excuse for my taking the Opposition view about this.

I shall vote this evening as if this were a Motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend, subject only to this one matter, and I propose this evening to vote with and vote for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to whom the soubriquet "Mr. Mac-Wonder" has been applied on many recent occasions.

9.33 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

Before coming to the main points which have been raised tonight, I should like to say a word about the innocent cause of all this trouble. My good friend Derick Heathcoat Amory felt it necessary to lay down the burdens of his high office. We shall miss him from our ranks, both in the Government and the House. We shall miss him because of his single-minded devotion to the public service and also because of the charm and wit which he brought to his duties and made him universally popular.

I hope that he will have a good holiday and good sailing and I am sure that he will soon be called upon to dedicate in one form or another his great abilities to the service of his country. [HON. MEMBERS: "As Foreign Secretary."] The circumstances of his resignation put me in a somewhat unusual position, because, as everyone in the House knows, his coming resignation was made known over quite a long period. Normally, when a Government is formed, it is made either immediately after an election or, if a Prime Minister resigns or dies, immediately a new Prime Minister receives the Queen's commission. It is a matter of three or four days.

I utterly deny that any leak came from my office or, so far as I know, any other.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I read during a period of about three weeks, when I was already beginning to make up my mind, all sorts of shots at various posts. This was a somewhat unusual situation.

I felt, in those circumstances, having to make certain changes in the most important posts in the Government, that in the national interest the best possible successor would be my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).

I do not say that he was anxious to leave the Foreign Office. Not at all. He has in these five years mastered the whole subject and proved himself the master of his work. He was not at all surprised, and he was rather unwilling to leave, but he was willing, as I expected of him, to leave the decision to me, as to what I thought best in the public interest, although coming to the Treasury party as a somewhat reluctant debutant. I felt, therefore, that this was the right decision.

Moreover, heavy as are the burdens which lie upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, their incidence is somewhat less oppressive day by day and week by week than those which are borne by the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary today is a little bit like the editor of a morning paper, with a few afternoon and evening editions thrown in as well. The telegrams pour in all day and night and not only have all of them to be read, but action has to be taken on them, and decisions have to be taken not merely on minor but on major issues with great rapidity.

The five hours' difference between New York and London has enormously complicated our handling of affairs in the United Nations and no one is more conscious than is the Foreign Secretary of the truth of the hymn, The sun that bids us rest is waking Our brethren 'neath the Western sky". He is rung up at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning to be asked how our representative should cast a vote in the Security Council—on an amendment which no one has seen on the "Order Paper". The Treasury, great as is its responsibility, moves, I think the House will agree, at a somewhat slower pace.

Mr. Nabarro

Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister

The Chancellor is more like the editor of a weekly or monthly journal. His problems are as difficult, perhaps, as those in the foreign field, but he has a little more time for reflection.

I therefore felt, apart from my right hon. and learned Friend's having all the qualifications for the post, that it would be wise to move him, after five years' stint, from the cruel and gruelling position at the Foreign Office. I think myself that it is wonderful how he has stood up to it. But I would not like to see in him what many of us have seen in this House —the decay of one man after another under the frightful pressure of this particular task.

Mr. Harold Davies

Put that in the election manifesto.

The Prime Minister

I thought that after five years of great pressure there was a need for a lighter task for him.

I had the necessity to choose his successor. I will tell the House quite simply why I recommended the appointment of my noble Friend Lord Home. I will tell the House simply, and I ask for its support. It is because, after watching his work for so many years in the Commonwealth Relations Office, I felt that he was the best man for the job. [Interruption.] The Labour Party does not know what a team is. It has not got one. The Commonwealth Relations Office has some similarity with the Foreign Office, and as the Commonwealth grows there are most difficult negotiations continually to be handled.

I watched with admiration my noble Friend at work, and especially the way in which he operated during the two Conferences of Commonwealth Prime Ministers over which I had the honour to preside. Therefore, I chose the man I thought at this moment the best for the job. That is, after all, a matter in which the responsibility and, therefore, the right of choice falls on me. I believe that Lord Home has the qualities which will make him a successful and widely respected Foreign Secretary.

I, too, have read some history, and seen some. I realised that the appointment of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, after an interval of about twenty years, would raise some difficulties. I knew that it would be challenged by the party opposite. I thought that it might even raise some anxiety among my own supporters. I remember the debate on the appointment of Lord Halifax. If, therefore, I had not been absolutely convinced that Lord Home was the best man for the job today, why should I have risked such a complication? I did not think that the mere accident of birth, or the mere fact that my noble Friend sits in another place, should debar me from the right to choose the man I wanted at my side, or deprive him of the opportunity to serve.

Of course, it is true that under the development of our Constitution more and more weight is placed on the House of Commons. Of course, it is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must sit in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because since the passing of the Parliament Act the House of Lords has no control over finance at all. That is a special case. Nevertheless, I think that it would be a very bad precedent to set to say that this or that Ministry should be for ever debarred from being given to a Member of the House of Lords, with a fixed pattern of which posts are to be allocated to either House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about the Prime Minister?"] The Prime Minister is not appointed by the Prime Minister. The matter rests entirely with the Sovereign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If we said that certain posts must be House of Lords posts and certain posts House of Commons posts, it would not simplify but would add to the difficulties of my successor.

After all we have a bicameral system. I think that it is admitted that the House of Lords has been deprived of its legislative power, yet to some extent its prestige has risen. Its debates create wide interest. Its authority is growing. Nor have I noticed any undue reluctance by Members on either side of the House, at the appropriate moment, to move along the corridor.

It is said that foreign affairs are so important that they can be entrusted only to an elected Member. That is the argument; that it must be someone directly answerable to the House of Commons, as if the whole Government were not answerable to the House of Commons in every Department of State. Of course they are. Of course, foreign affairs are of vital importance. So are Commonwealth affairs, yet successive Prime Ministers have not thought it necessary that the Commonwealth Secretary should be answerable to the House of Commons or be an elected Member.

I have reversed this in the new Government. The Foreign Secretary is in the House of Lords and the Commonwealth Secretary is in the House of Commons. I might recall that in my lifetime, except for war, perhaps the most critical decisions ever taken by a Minister, or a Minister primarily responsible, were those concerning our relations with India immediately after the war. What a heavy burden it must have been; not only in guiding policy leading up to independence, but in the immense difficulties and tragedies of partition. Yet the Labour Party thought it right that the Secretary of State should not be an elected Member; should not be answerable to this House; should sit in the Lords and not the Commons.

Finally, it is argued that Members of the House of Commons—and I think that this is really the point that was being made, although some of the arguments seemed rather to cross each other out—are so interested in foreign affairs that they must have the full opportunity to question, attack, and generally bully-rag the Foreign Secretary. If he is in the House of Commons, it is said, they will have this opportunity; but if he is in the House of Lords, there is no target for their criticism.

As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, things have worked out rather differently, for the very reasons he gave. In the last year, the Foreign Secretary was absent on business from this country for 125 days, 75 of them while Parliament was sitting. He was able to answer Oral Questions on only five out of 24 Foreign Office days, and in his place, therefore, the Ministers of State, or the Under-Secretaries acted for him.

Under the new arrangements, the Lord Privy Seal, a Cabinet Minister, will be the responsible Foreign Office Minister in the House of Commons and he will be available for a far greater time than is possible for the Foreign Secretary in modern conditions. Moreover, of course, the Prime Minister has to answer a good many questions on foreign affairs and to take part in foreign affairs debates.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Anthony Eden's objections to a Foreign Minister in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman quoted them perfectly correctly—I, too, looked them up. What did he say? He said that the Foreign Office must be represented by a Cabinet Minister and that if he were represented in the Commons by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary, that would lay too heavy a burden on the Prime Minister. However, the new arrangement, with the Lord Privy Seal acting as deputy Foreign Secretary and with the full status of a Cabinet Minister, will largely meet the reasons which were in Sir Anthony Eden's mind.

Therefore, I do not see any reason, in history or precedent or in the way in which the constitutional system should now continue to develop, against the Foreign Secretary being a Member of the House of Lords, should the Prime Minister of the day regard a peer as the most suitable of his colleagues for that appointment. Indeed, it has been argued, but I do not rest upon it, that there are positive advantages in having the Foreign Secretary in another place. Indeed, it has been strongly argued. If not from the point of view of the House of Commons, then certainly from the point of view of the organisation of the Foreign Office, there is a great deal to be said for the additional Cabinet Minister for, however excellent is the work—and it has been excellent—of the Ministers of State, they do not have the status, at home or abroad, to give them the full authority.

A Foreign Secretary necessarily has to go to many meetings—N.A.T.O., CENTO and the rest—and spend long periods overseas, making visits sometimes with the Prime Minister and sometimes without. When he is abroad, he has to carry with him not just the staff to deal with the particular matter with which he is dealing, but a fully responsible and appropriate staff for the whole daily work of the Foreign Office. He cannot divest himself of it. It is true that if he is to be away for a long time arrangements are sometimes made for the Prime Minister to take charge, but that only throws even more work on a Minister who is not without some cares. Under the new system, when the Foreign Secretary is away, it will be possible for the Lord Privy Seal, with the full authority of the Cabinet, to operate the day-to-day work of the Foreign Office.

I read an article in a Sunday newspaper, not very well disposed to the Government ordinarily, which went so far as to argue that it should be not only permissive but obligatory for the Foreign Secretary to sit in the House of Lords, but that seemed to me to carry the argument to an absurd length. All I am saying is that when the most suitable candidate for the post, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, happens at any time to be a peer, and if we can make arrangements, which we are making, for the representation of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons by a Minister of full Cabinet rank, although there are disadvantages, there are quite large corresponding advantages. Therefore, I do not regard this as a matter of principle, as the right hon. Gentleman did, but as a matter of expediency.

The House may have noticed that the Lord Privy Seal will be asked, apart from being second in command of the Foreign Office over the whole field, to give special attention within the Department to European questions. That does not mean anything like the proposals, which are sometimes made to me in Questions, to appoint a Minister for Europe. I am sure that that would be a mistake, for such a Minister would operate more or less in vacuo and could not function effectively. Moreover, the problems of Europe, especially economic problems, are of vital importance to the Treasury and the Board of Trade, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Nevertheless, I think that the arrangements to be made within the Foreign Office, by which my right hon. Friend the new Lord Privy Seal will have special care of Foreign Office interests in these European matters, will make for efficiency.

It may be argued that this arrangement of a Foreign Secretary with a deputy of Cabinet rank will lead to jealousies, internal pressures and friction. I think that I may say—I hope I say nothing which will arouse too much opposition—that it all depends on the personalities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?"]. I am satisfied that my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend will work together in harmony and co-operation—[HON. MEMBERS: "They will have to."] It does not work very much on the other side of the House.

The real truth is that hon. Members opposite do not seem to have any idea of what is meant by working in a team or else the team is ragged. I am satisfied that this will work and if it does not the responsibility lies on me. I repeat that realising that there would be criticisms and difficulties, I have made this appointment because I believe it the right thing to do.

There has been one other point raised in another newspaper to which I should like to refer. Reference has been made in the Press, I see today, to the Lord Privy Seal acting in the House of Commons as a "spokesman ". This is quite wrong. He will be a Member of the Cabinet and deputy to the Foreign Secretary over the whole field of Foreign Office business. It is an important position and a great responsibility.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question which I put to the Leader of the House today? Do the new functions of the Lord Privy Seal supersede those functions which we understand hitherto have been carried out by the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the Communities of the Six and the Seven?

The Prime Minister

No. So far as Foreign Office interests are concerned, he will devote himself to that. The Minister of Agriculture has a great concern in this. I say again that he will be responsible for the Foreign Office interest in European affairs politically more or less completely and economically, working in with his colleagues in other Departments. I think that this will work.

There is another point which has been mentioned, and to which I must refer. It has been alleged that I am trying to get greater control or exercise a more personal control over foreign affairs. Everyone knows that the relationship between the Prime Minister and his leading colleagues, whether at the Foreign Office or the Treasury, depend for their success on a real sense of partnership. I have had actual experience in all these posts and certainly in my long partnership with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral over these past five years we have had the most happy relations. Decisions have been taken together and I think that we have been real partners. The same is true of my relations with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am talking of these two offices because they are the two offices I have held and seen from both angles.

Of course, times change, as the right hon. Gentleman says. In the old days of the concert of Europe, except for occasional meetings of principals, like the Congress of Vienna, or the Treaty of Berlin, negotiations were carried by ambassadors. Then there came a later period when Foreign Secretaries played the leading role not only in fact, but in the public eye. There were Grey, Austen Chamberlain, Litvinov and Eden. Since the Second World War we have moved into another period. The President of the United States has always had, of course, a special position as chief executive and if I remember rightly, with the one exception of Mr. President Wilson, who came after the First World War, the President never left the country. Now the President is willing to move abroad for these conferences.

At the same time, the head of the Soviet Union has emerged, since the death of Stalin, from the obscure recesses of the Kremlin into the light of day. In France and in Western Germany both President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer exercise certain functions themselves and expect to attend meetings at which Britain, if she is not to be left out, must be represented at the appropriae level. This has forced the Prime Minister, in partnership with the Foreign Secretary, to take a public part in foreign affairs in a way that was rarely necessary in the past. This, alas, is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of fact.

Now that this matter has been ventilated in the House, I hope that the House will not think it right to press objections to the Prime Minister for exercising what is perhaps the most important of his functions, that is, the choice of his colleagues, and to exercise it in a way that is in conformity with the public interest. I hope that this matter will, therefore, not be pressed to a Division.

I do not quite follow the way in which the Liberal Party intends to vote. Considering that it has so few representatives in the Commons and so many in the Lords it seems rather like biting the

only hand that feeds it if it goes against us tonight. If there is a Division, I should like to make it clear that, although I was, of course, aware that there would be some temporary difficulties and objections, I have made my choice in accordance with what I conceive to be my public duty.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 220, Noes 332.

Division No. 151.] AYES [9.57 p.m.
Abse, Leo Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mendelson, J. J.
Ainsley, William Gourlay, Harry Millan, Bruce
Albu, Austen Greenwood, Anthony Mitchison, G. R.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grey, Charles Monslow, Walter
Allen, Soholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moody, A. S.
Awbery, Stan Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Morris, John
Bacon, Miss Alice Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Mort, D. L.
Baird, John Gunter, Ray Moyle, Arthur
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil(Colne Valley) Mulley, Frederick
Beaney, Alan Hannan, William Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hart, Mrs. Judith Oliver, G. H.
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hayman, F. H. Oram, A. E.
Benn,Hn.A.Wedgwood(Brist'I,S.E.) Healey, Denis Oswald, Thomas
Benson, Sir George Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) Owen, Will
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Miss Margaret Paget, R. T.
Blyton, William Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Boardman, H. Hilton, A. V. Pargiter, G. A.
Boyden, James Holman, Percy Parker, John (Dagenham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Holt, Arthur Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Brookway, A. Fenner Houghton, Douglas Pavitt, Laurence
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Howell, Charles A. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hoy, James H. Peart, Frederick
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Popplewell, Ernest
Callaghan, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Prentice, R. E.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hunter, A. E. Prootor, W. T.
Chapman, Donald Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Chetwynd, George Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rankin, John
Cliffe, Michael Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Janner, Barnett Reid, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Reynolds, G. W.
Cronin, John Jeger, George Rhodes, H.
Crosland, Anthony Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Crossman, R. H. S. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Darling, George Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robinson, Kenneth(St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Royle, Charlesf (Salford, West)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Deer, George Kelley, Richard Skeffington, Arthur
de Freitas, Geoffrey Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Delargy, Hugh Key, Rt Hon. C. W. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Dempsey, James King, Dr. Horace Small, William
Diamond, John Lawson, George Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)
Dodds, Norman Lee, Frederick (Newton) Snow, Julian
Donnelly, Desmond Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Sorensen, R. W.
Driberg, Tom Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Loughlin, Charles Steele, Thomas
Edelman, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Stonehouse, John
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) MacColl, James Stones, William
Evans, Albert Mclnnes, James Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Fernyhough, E. McKay, John (Wallsend) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R (Vauxhall)
Finch, Harold Mackie, John Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Fitch, Alan McLeavy, Frank Swain, Thomas
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Swingler, Stephen
Forman, J. C. Manuel, A. C. Sylvester, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mapp, Charles Symonds, J. B.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon Hugh Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Galpern, Sir Myer Marsh, Richard Taylor, John (West Lothian)
George, Lady Megan Lioyd Mason, Roy Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Ginsburg, David Mayhew, Christopher Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Gooch, E. G. Mellish, R. J Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) White, Mrs. Eirene Winterbottom, R. E.
Thornton, Ernest Whitlock, William Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Tomney, Frank Wigg, George Woof, Robert
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Willey, Frederick Wyatt, Woodrow
Wainwright, Edwin Williams, D. J. (Neath) Zilliacus, K.
Warbey, William Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) Mr. Bowden and Mr. Mahon.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Agnew, Sir Peter Deedes, W. F. Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Aitken, W. T. de Ferranti, Basil Hughes-Young, Michael
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Digby, Simon Wingfield Hulbert, Sir Norman
Allason, James Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Hurd, Sir Anthony
Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M. Doughty, Charles Hutchison, Michael Clark
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Drayson, G. B. Iremonger, T. L.
Arbuthnot, John du Cann, Edward Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Duncan, Sir James Jackson, John
Atkins, Humphrey Duthie, Sir William James, David
Balniet, Lord Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Barber, Anthony Eden, John Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir John Elliott, R. W. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Barter, John Emery, Peter Joseph, Sir Keith
Batsford, Brian Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kaberry, Sir Donald
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Errington, Sir Eric Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Kerby, Capt. Henry
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Farey-Jones, F. W. Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Farr, John Kershaw, Anthony
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Glos & Fhm) Fell, Anthony Kimball, Marcus
Berkeley, Humphry Fisher, Nigel Kitson, Timothy
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lagden, Godfrey
Bidgood, John C. Foster, John Lambton, Viscount
Biggs-Davison, John Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Langford-Holt, J.
Bingham, R. M. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Leavey, J. A.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Freeth, Denzil Leburn, Gilmour
Bishop, F. P. Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Black, Sir Cyril Gammans, Lady Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bossom, Clive Gardner, Edward Lilley, F. J. P.
Bourne-Arton, A. George, J. C. (Pollok) Lindsay, Martin
Box, Donald Gibson-Watt, David Linstead, Sir Hugh
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Glover, Sir Douglas Litchfield, Capt. John
Boyle, Sir Edward Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Braine, Bernard Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Brewis, John Godber, J. B. Longbottom, Charles
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H Goodhart, Philip Longden, Gilbert
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Goodhew, Victor Loveys, Walter H.
Brooman-White, R. Gower, Raymond Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bryan, Paul Green, Alan Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bullard, Denys Gresham Cooke, R. McAdden, Stephen
Bullus, Wing Commander Erio Grimston, Sir Robert MacArthur, Ian
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. McLaren, Martin
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Gurden, Harold McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hall, John (Wycombe) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Robert (Mitoham) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Cary, Sir Robert Hare, Rt. Hon. John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Channon, H. P. G. Harris, Reader (Heston) McMaster, Stanley R.
Chataway, Christopher Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Chichester-Clark, R. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Harvie Anderson, Miss Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hay, John Maddan, Martin
Cleaver, Leonard Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maginnis, John E.
Cole, Norman Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Maitland, Sir John
Collard, Richard Henderson, John (Cathcart) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Cooke, Robert Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Markham, Major Sir Frank
Cooper, A. E. Hendry, Forbes Marlowe, Anthony
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hiley, Joseph Marshall, Douglas
Cordle, John Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Marten, Neil
Corfield, F. V. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Costain, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Coulson, J. M. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hirst, Geoffrey Mawby, Ray
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hobson, John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Critchley, Julian Hocking, Philip N. Mills, Stratton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E. Holland, Philip Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Crowder, F. P. Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Montgomery, Fergus
Cunningham, Knox Hopkins, Alan Morgan, William
Curran, Charles Hornby, R. P. Morrison, John
Currie, G. B. H. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Nabarro, Gerald
Dance, James Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Neave, Airey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Nicholls, Harmar
Nicholson, Sir Geoffrey Robson Brown, Sir William Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Noble, Michael Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Nugent, Sir Richard Roots, William Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D. Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Russell, Ronald Turner, Colin
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Osborn, John (Hallarn) Scott-Hopkins, James Tweedsmuir, Lady
Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Seymour, Leslie van Straubenzee, W. R.
Page, John (Harrow, West) Sharples, Richard Vane, W. M. F.
Page, Graham Shaw, M. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Shepherd, William Vickers, Miss Joan
Partridge, E. Simon, Sir Jocelyn Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Skeet, T. H. H. Wakefield, Sir Waveil (St. M'lebone)
Peel, John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Percival, Ian Smithers, Peter Wall, Patrick
Peyton, John Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood) Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn Spearman, Sir Alexander Watts, James
Pilkington, Capt. Richard Speir, Rupert Webster, David
Pitman, I. J. Stanley, Hon. Richard Wells, John (Maldstone)
Pitt, Miss Edith Stevens, Geoffrey Whitelaw, William
Powell, J. Enoch Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stodart, J. A. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Willis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Prior, J. M. L. Storey, Sir Samuel Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Studholme, Sir Henry Wlse, A. R.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Proudfoot, Wilfred Sumner, Donald (Orpington) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Ramsden, James Talbot, John E. Woodhouse, C. M.
Rawlinson, Peter Tapsell, Peter Woodnutt, Mark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Woollam, John
Rees, Hugh Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) Worsley, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R. Teeling, William Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Renton, David Temple, John M.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ridsdale, Julian Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Mr. E. Wakefield and
Rippon, Geoffrey Thomas, Peter (Conway) Colonel J. H. Harrison.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)