Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICE MEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)

HC Deb 19 December 1961 vol 651 cc1222-75

Mr. Reynolds

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to add: (3A) This section shall not apply to any person who—

1. (a) was married at the time of his entry into army service as, or as the equivalent of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948; or
2. (b) is the sole supporter of a widowed mother; or
3. (c) during the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants.

After three hours' wasted time, I now find myself moving the first of the Amendments that we are dealing with today. As you have said, Sir Gordon, it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the subsequent Amendments which go with it. I hope to find myself in the fortunate position of moving an Amendment which the Secretary of State, to make sure that there will be a Report stage, will accept. I commend our Amendment to him as one that is worthy of acceptance for other reasons also.

Neither the Committee nor the House has been told exactly what type of man will be retained under this form of selective service which the Government are trying to introduce. In various Defence White Papers from time to time, we have been told of shortages of various types of men and the Minister has told us that there are shortages in the teeth arms and in the tail. Nevertheless, we have before us in the Clause a form of selective service based entirely on the needs of the Army at a particular time and for a given period.

The intention of the group of Amendments which we are now discussing is to exempt from that selective service certain categories of people. The Amendment specifies three clearly-defined categories who should be exempted from this form of selective service. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) hopes to put a number of points of view on these three clearly-defined categories. The remaining Amendments deal with other special cases, particularly on hardship grounds, which, we believe, should be exempted from the selective service which the Minister and the Government are now trying to introduce.

I should like to go through some of the various categories and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a number of important points to make concerning them and others. The first category in our Amendment is men who were married at the time of commencing their Army Service. They will have spent two years away from home and from their wives and, in some cases, from their families. Now, they are to be called upon, in many cases, to serve for another six months. If anybody has to be withheld from his family for another six months, men in this category should be exempted.

In all these Amendments, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of disagreeing completely with the whole principle of the selective service aspects of the Bill. To try to mitigate its effect on certain people, however, we have to try to make it even more selective. We would rather not have the Bill at all. Our motives, which are of the best, are to try to exclude from the selective service aspects of the Bill cases which should be completely exempted.

A man who was married before he began his National Service, who already has had two years away from home and, perhaps, away from his family—or, if he spent six months in the United Kingdom first, has had perhaps eighteen months overseas—should not in the existing circumstances be expected to spend another six months undertaking Army service.

Some of these men, having completed apprenticeships, university courses or the like, may have been married for a year or two before entering the Army. Having spent two years doing their National Service, they may well wish to start families. In anticipation of being demobilised, some of them may have started families on the assumption that they would come out of the Army after April of next year. They may have made arrangements, not having a home of their own before commencing National Service, either to purchase or lease a house or flat for the time when they leave the Army. They have been ticking off the days on the calendar behind their beds. They have known for months that they must find a home for their wives and families when their National service finishes.

It takes twelve months or so to build a new house. It may be that a number of these men have houses being constructed for them or have already entered into agreements whereby they will become tenants under a lease lasting for several years at a considerable rent, which has to be paid nowadays to get a flat or a house, and they will not now be able to take advantage of the accommodation which they have obtained because they will be expected to serve another six months after their National Service. We believe that this category of man, particularly the man with a wife and family who was married before starting his National Service, should be excluded from the selective service aspects of the Bill.

Secondly, the Amendment embraces the National Service man who is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. Sometimes, in these circumstances, a financial problem can be involved, but very often it is probably a psychological problem concerning the widowed mother. She feels that she is being unfairly treated in any event because her son and sole support has been taken away from her for a two-year period. She will have been looking forward to the day of her son's return and, almost like her son in the Army, she will have been ticking off the days on the calendar. The day on which he is due to finish his service will have been circled off and his mother expects to have him home. Now, however, she is in danger of finding that he is liable for another six months' service. On compassionate grounds alone, the Minister should be prepared to exempt this type of man from the selective service aspect.

The third category is men with dependants who are in receipt of National Service grants. Here, we come to the real hardship cases, mainly from a financial point of view. All these cases wall have been thoroughly investigated already by officers of the various public and charitable organisations. It will have been agreed that the financial circumstances of their dependants or families are such that, in addition to the ordinary National Service pay, a certain amount should be paid by way of National Service grant to avoid hardship occurring in a family or to a National Service man's dependants.

It has already been agreed, even without the Bill and this addition to the length of National Service, that in the cases where National Service grant is being paid, there is financial hardship. We ought to declare that this financial hardship should not be continued for a further six months. I realise that these men will go from National Service to Regular pay scales if they serve for another six months. Nevertheless, they have been suffering financial hardship for some time. We believe that they should now be excluded from further service under the Clause.

I come next to some of the categories which are not quite as tight as those specified in the first Amendment. I hope that whilst our subsequent Amendments, which are being discussed at the same time, are not to be moved or voted upon, the Minister will be prepared either to accept them or to introduce appropriately worded Amendments of his own on Report. We are proposing that a man who was married before 1st December, 1961, before the Bill reached an advanced stage, should be excluded from the provisions of the Clause.

Here again, we are concerned with men who anticipated that they would finish their National Service in, say, April or May of next year. This may well have been one of the factors—I do not imagine that it was the most important factor, although it may well have been a factor—which led them to decide to get married in, say, October, November or December, 1961.

7.30 p.m.

Obviously, having taken that grave and important step, he will have had to make certain arrangements, and here again a problem arises. He has probably endeavoured to make arrangements to make sure that, when he comes out of the Army, housing accommodation will be available. He has probably arranged with his wife for the purchase of furniture and other things. Therefore there is a case for excluding him, along with the man who married before entering into National Service, from the provisions of this Clause.

Then there is the slightly more nebulous but still definable case of a man who had given notice to marry before 1st December, 1961, but who has not got married. The banns will have been called or notice given at the register office and it has been his honest intention to get married. He has given proper notice of it in the legal manner. We have provided in the Amendments that whilst he has given notice of marriage before 1st December, 1961, in order to be excluded he must get married before 1st April, 1962. Undoubtedly anyone who has given notice of marriage by 1st December, 1961, will in the vast majority of cases be getting married before 1st April, 1962.

In most cases the wedding date will have been arranged and the wedding guests invited to come to the service and to the feast that normally takes place. Some guests will have bought gifts already, apart from their Christmas shopping, and the honeymoon will have been arranged and hotel accommodation booked. In some cases a flat will have been obtained by purchase or renting and furniture bought on hire purchase, in expectation of the fact that the prospective husband, a National Service man, in May or June of next year will have finished National Service and will have returned to his civilian occupation. Yet now, with all these arrangements made, he is faced with the prospect that even if he is able to get married he many not be able to meet his full financial commitments and will be away from his wife for six months longer than he expected when the original arrangements were entered into.

There is a further category which I admit is rather looser than the ones which I have mentioned so far. We claim that in cases where the individual National Service man or his dependants would suffer exceptional hardship there should be exception from the provisions of the Clause. I want to look at three items which I feel would come under this provision. First, and I have had an instance of this from one of my own constituents, there is the case of the family business—a small greengrocer's, a sweet and newspaper shop, or a builder's and decorator's—which has been struggling along, the father or brother keeping the business going for eighteen months or two years while the son or other brother has been completing his National Service.

Businesses of this kind can be carried on for a certain period by only one member of the family, but to have to carry on the business in the absence of a member of the family for a further period of six months might be beyond the capacity of the remaining member and of the business itself. It is quite possible that a National Service man who has a connection with a small family business and who is compelled to carry on for a further six months' National Service might find that the business had suffered so that when he has finally completed his service he has no job and no business to which to return.

Then there is the position of doctors, which makes a special case. I quote them primarily because the British Medical Association, which we are all fully aware is one of the best organised pressure groups in the country, has given information about the financial position of doctors during National Service. I have no doubt that this is the type of case which can properly be put up for a number of other professional workers as well. The British Medical Association has pointed out that doctors are in two categories. Those in Category A were called up for National Service and were removed for two years from what the Association describes as a highly competitive civilian profession. They received during that two-year period lower pay than other members of the medical profession not called up, and now they are being told that they may well be compulsorily retained in the Forces for an extra six months or even, under Clause 2 to which some of these Amendments apply, may be recalled from their civilian occupation, to do six months' service in the Forces.

On the other hand, we have the doctor who is not called up, possibly a woman or a doctor who is domiciled overseas or even someone who is medically unfit or is excused to take up post-graduate training or on grounds of personal hardship. One doctor has been doing National Service for two years on much lower pay than his competitor in the National Health Service, who will be able to continue without fear of having to do six months, either added on or as a result of being called back into the Army, and is able to carry on uninterrupted with his civilian career.

It could be argued, and the B.M.A. definitely argues, that the doctor doing National Service can be said to suffer considerable financial hardship compared with the doctor who for one reason or another is not expected to do National Service. The B.M.A. actually suggests that a doctor should be paid a substantial gratuity if retained or recalled, and the Association points out that a doctor on short-service commission is paid a gratuity of £500 for each year of service. There is no doubt that the doctor—and this would apply to other professional workers—suffers financial hardship as compared with his fellow-doctor or some other person who is not called upon to do National Service. And now he is to be compelled to serve for a further six months.

Then there is the position of the young man who is doing National Service at the moment and who on 1st December applied for a university place for September of next year. He may well have submitted applications already to quite a large number of universities. He would have been finishing his National Service in July or August of next year in time to gain acceptance to start at the university the following September. At the moment, these young men have absolutely no guarantee that even if they are able to obtain a place at one of the universities they will not be forced to forgo that place because they are needed in the Army for a further six months.

Whilst they had expected to finish National Service in July or August, 1962, they will not finish until April, May or June, 1963. There is a definite case for saying that someone who has waited to go to a university and has done his National Service first, or who whilst doing his National Service has decided that he would like to go to a university and who has obtained a place, can be said to suffer considerable hardship which may last over the remaining period of his life if he is forced to give up that place because he is called up under Clause 1 or, under Clause 2, is compelled to go back to do a further six months' National Service. I hope that we can have some assurance, even if the actual Amendments are not accepted, that the classifications which I have mentioned will receive earnest and serious consideration by the Minister. I hope that if he is not able to accept some of the Amendments he will table similar ones of his own.

There are two other classifications in the Amendments, namely, the married man with children and the married man whose wife is at present pregnant or was pregnant at the time when he was asked to stay on for a further six months. In both instances I feel that there is a case for excluding that type of group, from the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2, though I admit that in the second instance advantage might well be taken of it.

Lastly, I refer to the group of people who have entered into serious and sometimes large financial commitments on the assumption that their National Ser vice was to end at a given date. In many cases, these young men have decided to enter into hire-purchase contracts to buy furniture, assuming that they would leave the Army in May or June, 1962. However, it is more likely to affect young men buying houses, or flats, or new maisonettes for the time when they expect to leave the Army. Such a decision has to be taken, as I have explained, at least a year before the accommodation concerned is required. Believing that his National Service was to end in May or June, 1962, such a young man would already have entered into the financial commitments, having signed the mortgage and only awaiting the completion of the building and his leaving the Army before taking occupation.

He will be unable to get out of the financial commitments which he will have entered into in all good faith. He may not come out of the Army until towards the end of 1962, perhaps Christmas, 1962, instead of May or June, but during the whole of that six months he will have to meet the mortgage repayments. He may suffer financial hardship, and, although there are ways and means of easing it, a man taking that course, believing that he will have finished with the Army, only to find that because of the Government's muddle he now has to undergo some form of selective service because all the Government's calculations have been completely wrong, will suffer hardship. He will be in the onerous position of having to meet financial commitments with an income, even though at the Regular rate of pay, which is lower than that which he expected when he made the commitment. In addition, he will be away from his wife and family for a further six months.

In the cases I have mentioned—and my hon. Friends will no doubt have many others which could be counted within the category of hardship, and particularly financial hardship—it could be argued that the system should be even more selective, selective on a framework rather different from that which the Minister has in mind. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, for it will enable us to have a Report stage and not be kept in suspense, until we reach Clause 7 or 8, about whether we are to have a Report stage. We will know that the undertaking given to us is perfectly safe and that we will have a Report stage, and at the same time we will get rid of some of the hardship which will otherwise undoubtedly occur in the operation of Clauses 1 and 2.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

One cannot but agree in substance with what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has said, but if there are many categories of people who are to be removed from the provisions of the Bill, to some extent that will detract from the value of the Bill itself. No one will deny that there are many hard luck cases—people going to universities, medical men and others. But much the easiest way to deal with them is not to lay down particular categories which can be exempt, but to leave it to the Minister to decide on each individual case whether it is a genuine hardship case.

During the war that was done successfully, and anybody who had an extremely good case on compassionate or other grounds was released at an earlier date. By far the easiest way of dealing with what can be described only as selective conscription would be to use the basis of individual hardship. If we exclude wide categories of people, we can go on ad infinitum. The hon. Member for Islington, North spoke of those buying houses and undertaking other financial commitments, and I entirely agree with him about such cases; but we should approach it in the other way, leaving the Minister to decide these questions, having taken all factors into consideration and having had the case investigated through S.S.A.F.A., or some other organisation. For those reasons, I could not possibly support the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I hope that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) will change his mind. He has been a Regular soldier and he knows how delicate a thing discipline is. He also knows, if I may use a hackneyed phrase, that the Army is as strong as its weakest link, and that if we tamper with discipline we are setting in motion influences which might have far-reaching consequences.

Up to this time, with great wisdom successive Governments have left the question of who is to go into the Armed Forces as an entirely civilian matter. A man who chooses to appeal on conscientious or other grounds goes before the hardship tribunal and goes as a civilian. Whether he is rich or poor, clever or stupid, he goes with absolutely equal rights to appear before a group of fellow citizens who are to take the decision.

This is the great attraction of the American system of the selected draft. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and I have gathered what information we could about this system. One of the things which is boasted about it is that it is a man's friends and neighbours who decide whether he shall go in. It is far better to decide on that basis than to leave it to the arbitrary decision of the Minister.

I ask hon. Members to ponder on what the Secretary of State has already told us. He is to take away from a man's commanding officer—the officer to whom he looks and who is responsible for his care and for organising his unit and for providing his leave and administering justice and, in the last analysis, leading him if it comes to the final purpose for which the Army exists, and who will command him as a fighting soldier—the right to decide whether a man's case should be accepted. A man is now to be given notice by the Minister that he will be retained.

I suppose that the majority of men will try it on, whether they have a case or not. Those applying for exemption will fall into one of three categories. There will be one category of men whose cases are obviously overwhelming, for reasons such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). They will go out. There is the second category, to which I would probably belong if I were affected, of those obviously trying it on. They will be kept in. Then there is the third category. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman—and this is a grave departure from past procedure—that this group is to be handed over lock, stock and barrel and considered by a tribunal, whose chairman we do not know and whose terms of reference we do not know. This tribunal in one breath was called impartial and in the next breath independent, while in the next breath were told that the absolute authority would rest with the Minister. This is another example of a half-baked half thought out, certainly not yet digested scheme of whose details we have yet to be told.

Let us go back in our tracks. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who moved the Amendment, which appears in my name, with great charm and ability, approached it from an angle somewhat different from mine. He spoke from the angle of the individual, of the individual's relatives and obligations. As this is an Army Reserve Bill, I approach it differently.

I have accepted the right hon. Gentleman's figures. He wants 15,000 men, and he has been driven into the corner envisaged by paragraph 48 of the 1957 White Paper which says: It must nevertheless be understood that, it voluntary recruiting fails to produce the numbers required, the country will have to face the need for some limited form of compulsory service to bridge the gap. This is the Measure to bridge the gap. The Minister has said that he does not want the men before 1st April, that 50,000 men would be available over the period and although at first he said that he needed about 25,000, he subsequently said that it would be only 15,000. A comparatively limited number of men is wanted to bridge the gap. Hon. Members seem to have completely overlooked this. In Cmnd. 175 of May, 1957, in paragraph 6, we find the Government's declaration: The only really practicable form of selective service would be a ballot which the Government would only accept if there were no alternative. The Government told the truth in 1957, in saying that the only way of filling the gap was by a ballot. The ballot is completely out. We are now told that 15,000 chaps are wanted. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East says—and here I slightly disagree with him—that we regard selective service with abhorrence. We have had plenty of lip service to the same principle from the benches opposite. Those of us who have pleaded for a realistic view about this matter have been told that the one thing which the Government will not have is selective service. This is the horror of horrors. From a weak case, they have tried to smear two hon. Members on the fourth back bench and myself, saying that we wanted conscription. No more unkind, untrue or wicked statement could have been made. We were the pioneers in trying to get rid of it. What we say is that, rather than have half-baked units far under establishment scattered all over the world and pretending that we have atomic weapons which we have not got, we prefer the honest course of facing up to our obligations.

When I am told that we have no selective service, I rock with laughter. The Army took me back into its care when I went back, I am very glad to say, to a military hospital a couple of years ago. I remember that HANSARD used to come in, and that there was a statement by the then. Minister of Labour, the present Lord Privy Seal, who, quite arbitrarily and without any warning, announced that the Government intended not to call up 60,000 men—not 15,000 men, but not to call up 60,000 men. Up to that time, the principles upon which we were calling up men were that the miners, the agricultural workers and merchant seamen were exempt. What was that but selective service?

I have brought here this afternoon HANSARD of 14th December, 1959, because there the Minister said that he would circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the classes affected in the 60,000 men who were not to be called up, and this was in the days when we were told we had no selective service. What were these classes? They were:

1. (1) Men deferred by a National Service Deferment Board as learners, apprentices, student apprentices, articled pupils, articled clerks, or for training as technicians, or for approved part-bearing;
2. (2) Men (other than medical and dental students) deferred by a University Joint Recruiting Board for a first or higher degree or an approved diploma or similar course, including a sandwich course;
3. (3) Any university graduates or graduate apprentices deferred by a National Service Deferment Board for approved practical training following graduation;
4. (4) Students at Teacher Training Colleges, Farm Institutes, or on practical training on the land;
5. (5) Theological and missionary students and similar classes;
1235
6. (6) Former apprentices in certain engineering occupations granted deferment following termination of apprenticeship for employment on designated work of importance for defence or exports (post-apprenticeship deferment')."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1054.]

Now, somebody comes along and says that we must not have selective service. In the name of goodness, what have we had up to now?

The Government, refusing to face the awkward administrative decision created by their own policies and declarations, have now introduced a form of National Service that is as unfair, short-sighted and as militarily unacceptable as the mind of man could possibly discover, and they have done it for a limited period and have created a set of conditions which may even face this country with catastrophe.

Again, I plead guilty; I want to get rid of National Service and conscription. I want a Regular Army, but I am not going to pretend that we can manage with the numbers we have now got. We court disaster, particularly in the troubled world in which we live, if we have units, particularly on the Continent and in hot places, which are well below establishment. Therefore, I have put on the Notice Paper, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East—and they have been joined by others—these Amendments covering groups which are definable. They are specific and do not require any great administrative ability or cost in order to decide what they are. They are the men who are married at the time of their call-up, men who are the sole support of widow mothers and men with a National Service grant.

Here I must make the point that the Amendments fall into two groups. The Amendment we are now discussing and the ones that follow from it deal with Clause 1; that is to say, they obviously can be decided like that because they are the men serving who are married, those who support widowed mothers and those receiving the National Service grant. It is a matter of five minutes' work. The Amendment to page 2, line 36, to add:

1. (d) if he was married at the time of his entry into army service, as, or as the equivalent 1236 of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948; or
2. (e) if he is the sole supporter of a widowed mother; or
3. (f) if, during the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, he has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants"

deals with Clause 2, and I frankly admit that the third category, the men with National Service grants, may become a little dodgy, because the circumstances to which the man has gone back into civil life may be very different from what they were when he was serving.

What we want to do is to help the Minister, if he only wants 15,000 men. I am not going to trouble the Committee by giving the numerous authorities, distinguished serving authorities, or with some of the statements made in the Minister's own documents, which are not always intended for public circulation. The number of men which the Minister wants is about 182,000, although that will leave him short in certain specific categories. The final figure will depend upon the wastage and upon recruiting and, of course, there is another factor the full consequences of which the Army has yet to face—this business of putting recruiting as the greatest urgency of all, irrespective of the quality of the men in some of these services, which may create very great difficulties indeed. At any rate, we will settle for about 15,000 to 20,000, though we hope it will be less, but think it may be a little more—men of defined quality whose I.Q. the Minister can decide, and their occupation, without a ballot.

If we can help the Minister to give him the groups which we have already defined, I think we shall have taken considerable strides in the right direction, but the Minister should know that they are steps in the right direction, not only in dealing with the immediate problem but also in regard to the problem which will face some Government or other in about 3½ years time—in May, 1965.

What happens when the last National Service man has gone out? What follows after this policy? Therefore, I would plead guilty, if that is the right word, to having put down these Amendments as a sensible first step in the direction of educating the public into the realities of what an honest selective draft means, and as an alternative to the half-baked idea that we already have selective service in its most vicious and unpleasant form. I hope I shall have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and also that the Minister will see the wisdom of this, as helping him in his administrative problem and also in keeping the Army sweet and clean and away from this impossible task of deciding as between A and B—who should stay and who should go. Of course, the chaps in the ranks are sometimes a little more intelligent than hon. Members think they are. They will see through this. They will know, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Clapham, for whom I have great respect, will realise the wisdom of what I have been saying and will reverse his opinion, and, if necessary, which I hope it will not be, join me in the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. B. Harrison

I am glad of the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but I cannot go the whole way with him in supporting the Amendments. or in supporting the method by which he intends that selective service should be carried out. If the truth be known, I do not think that he thinks that it should be done in quite this way, but it does give us an excellent opportunity for a debate.

I am sure that the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, will cause a lot of trouble. I see all sorts of embarrassing possibilities. The point about a selective service scheme, which is what the hon. Gentleman has been discussing, is that it must be regulated and flexible. I do not think that tying a Minister down by Act of Parliament to certain categories, as is intended by these Amendments, is correct.

The hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) have both said that they have been studying the American selective service system. I think that they will both admit that the method of selection comes direct from the President, and that there is a completely independent form of organisation to deal with it, and it specifies the categories. The categories are not in any way specified in the actual legislation, but are specified in the regulations, as are the categories which are called up.

What I think we will have to do in the event of having an effective selective service will be not to have the compassionate cases specified like this, but to have a certain discretion to decide which types of occupations shall be called up rather than which types shall not, because the problem with armed forces is to get them balanced, and unless we can specify the type of shortages, and possibly have a ballot among those remaining, I think that we may be worse off than we are at present.

While I do not agree in toto with these Amendments, I think that they are forward-looking, and I think that it will not be long before, instead of having as it were a hidden selective service, we shall have a true selective service. I do not think that we in the United Kingdom have ever had a universal compulsory service. In other words, I do not think that there has ever been anything other than a selective service, even during the war. I think I am right in saying that the people whose registration number ended in "9" went down the pits, or there was some form of completely different selection.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will study the remarks made by various hon. Members on this subject so that when he comes, as he will in a year or two, to bring forward legislation to introduce a form of long-term selective service, which will be necessary if this country is to carry out its obligations, he will have benefited from this short debate on these Amendments.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman (Coventry, East)

When my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and I tabled these Amendments, we based them on two principles. First, that as we are anyhow selective, we may as well select, first, efficiently, and, secondly, as fairly and humanely as possible. It is on the first principle that this group of Amendments is based.

The second principle, which I do not think has been mentioned, is that as the Minister is anyway promoting a Bill permitting an appeal to a Committee, it seems essential that the principle upon which people shall be selected should be clearly laid down. I was amazed to hear from the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that he thought, and seriously put it forward, that if one is selecting about 15,000 men from a large number of people the best way of doing it is to lay down no kind of category; to lay down no kind of guiding principle; but to leave it entirely to the Secretary of State for War.

My hon. Friend has pointed out how unprecedented it is to say that the elaborate question of call-up should be transferred from the Ministry of Labour to the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for War has told us that he feels that it is essential to have an advisory committee which will hear appeals. Those who have served on committees know that if a committee is told that it shall consider each individual case on its merits, and there are 15,000 individual cases, there is no possible way of it being done. Everybody has to do it in terms of certain clear principles.

What we are saying, and this is where I part company from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), is that if one has a job of this sort to do it is far better to do it under certain statutory classifications. We have decided to try to write into the Bill certain statutory classifications so as to make it clear how the selection shall be carried out.

On the first principle that we are selecting anyhow, it is true that my hon. Friend and I have been looking into the American system. I think that I am right in correcting the hon. Member for Maldon on one particular. The selection is, of course, by regulations under the Selective Draft Bill legislation, and I suspect that the regulations there mean much the same as Orders in Council do in this country. That is to say, the classifications are included in the legislation which is passed by Congress. I cannot swear to this, but my reading of the position seems to suggest this.

Mr. B. Harrison

I have not my reference book with me, so I am not certain, but the point is that it is not in the initial legislation.

Mr. Crossman

No, it is in the regulations.

Mr. Harrison

I think that it would be wrong to write this into the Bill so that whenever any alteration was re quired we would have to introduce an Amendment to it.

Mr. Crossman

I think what is clear is that it is not in the initial Bill which they passed for selective service, but it is in the regulations for carrying out the Bill. I am not an expert on the American Constitution, nor is it relevant, because we do not propose to introduce the American selective draft system. All that we are concerned to do is to indicate to the Minister that it is no longer valid to go on saying that this is an impossible system for a democracy to introduce.

We shall not be decentralised like the Americans, but it is valid to point out that we are not really putting these Amendments forward believing that we can do this in detail, but because we want to use this opportunity to discuss whether or not it will be possible, in calling up these 15,000 people, to do it in a sensible way, and to do it in a way which teaches us something—and I shall come back to this—about the job which we shall in any case have to do after 1965. We want to use this time to try out a sensible way of doing it. That is the whole purpose of this legislation.

I now want to take up something which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). It seems to me time that we stopped using certain absolutely out-of-date clichés which are so old that they have ceased to be true. People talk about universal service. We know that universal call-up went out with the French Revolution. We have never called up everybody. We have reserved certain occupations, and conscientious objectors, and we do not call up ministers of religion. As has been pointed out, curiously enough every one of the main classifications of exemption in our universal call-up are to be found in the American selective service. The categories deferred under the American selective draft are almost the same. The Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service says: Separate classifications are provided for students satisfactorily pursuing their education"— that includes apprentices in America— registrants whose employment is considered to be necessary for the maintenance of national health, safety or interest; men whose induction would create extreme hardship for their dependants; persons who have had military service or are sole-surviving sons; elected government officials; certain aliens; ministers and ministerial students; and those over the age of military liability. They are exemptions of the kind we found ourselves compelled to introduce into our universal National Service, but the Americans have the classifications more scientifically and carefully worked out. That is why I was amazed to hear that the hon. Member thought that the only alternative to calling everybody up—which we have never done—is to have a ballot. It is never successful to pull names out of a hat, and it is insane in a democracy, when we want to combine efficiency with fairness. That can be done only by resorting to fair principles of selection.

That is why it is essential that principles of classification should be laid down with absolute clarity. There must be two kinds of principles—those dealing with hardship, with which we are concerned in the Amendment, and those concerned with efficiency. As the Americans pointed out in the introduction to their Annual Report last year, if they did not have a selective draft they would not have any doctors or dentists in their Army. I am looking forward to seeing how this problem will be overcome after 1965 in this country. I am interested to know how we shall be able to get sufficient people by voluntary methods.

The curious thing is that the voluntary professional Army, formed simply by strictly voluntary means and nothing else, is as out of date as the universal Army. Both are abstract notions, because with our voluntary recruitment we cannot get all the categories of skill we require. I cannot believe that we can fix prices for men so accurately that we can buy up, as it were, the right number of people who are skilled in electronics, dentistry and all the thousands of skills needed in the modern Army. I do not see how, by such a method, we can persuade the correct number of 182,000 to join up, so that we shall have not only the correct global figure but the exact proportions of men possessing the various skills required for our small Army.

In my view it is a total delusion to think that we need universal National Service, but it is an equally total delusion to believe that if we abolish all forms of call-up we will obtain the right 182,000 men. What will happen is that we shall get certain traditional types of people coming into the Army, but we shall find men lacking in 20 or 30 categories of absolutely key technical jobs without which the Army will be practically useless in war. There is no way of getting these men by money.

Therefore, we say that for the modern, highly skilled small Army of the future, we need the Regular soldier as a basis, but we need to add to him, when we have got him, a sufficient number of people whom we select. I put it bluntly that we shall be selecting them for their skills and proficiencies, and in doing so we shall have to be careful to eliminate—and be very generous in doing so, because we are not dealing with huge numbers—all hardship cases. We can do that in a very broad way. We shall be able to reject two-thirds of the category.

If we use this method we shall be able to combine economy of manpower with justice, because we will be able to call up men to form an Army of the size really required. Then, if circumstances change and we need a few more or less, we have a system under which this can be done. We can always vary the number required.

8.15 p.m.

What is required above all in this respect is what the Americans call an inventory. We need to know what people we have in the country, how many people we have of various skills, and where they are. The great point about a selective draft is that it provides the Government with information about the skilled men available, and where they are to be found, so that at the right time the Government can take precisely what they need. There is no other way of providing ourselves with an efficient modern Army without wasting manpower and distorting the economic processes of the nation.

One of the things which I want to point out is the striking fact that, ever since the selective draft was reintroduced in America, after being dropped in 1947—it was dropped for a period because it was thought that the Americans could do without it, but after 18 months they found they could not get the number of men they required—there has not been a serious political problem involving it. It has never become an issue in any Presidential or local election, because it is acceptable. It obviously makes sense. Once the people of a democratic nation can see it working, and know the principles and the clear-cut classifications on which it is based they will accept it. The American people have accepted it now, and they never argue about it.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan)

I realise the relevance of the American system of selective service to these Amendments. None the less, I think that we should keep more closely to the Amendments.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. At present we are discussing a Bill which the Secretary of State for War has told us was occasioned by the situation in Germany. We do not necessarily accept that it was, but the situation is that the Americans, by means of the selective draft, have been able to put 250,000 men into Germany whereas we, at present, have hardly a unit up to establishment. That is what my hon. Friend is arguing inside the scope of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman

I am not disagreeing; I merely suggest that we had better get back to the Amendments.

Mr. Crossman

I was arguing that we wanted to introduce clear-cut classifications and make them statutory. Two hon. Members opposite said that they liked the idea of a selective draft but not of statutory classifications.

Dr. Alan Glyn

I said that I did not like statutory classifications in the Bill.

Mr. Crossman

I am glad that the hon. Member has made that clear. I misunderstood him. If he says that he accepts the need for classification by Order in Council I do not mind a bit. I thought I heard him say that the Minister could do far better if he selected entirely individually, on his own. I made my case against him because I thought he was saying that the Minister can select all these 15,000 men by abstract principles known only in the Minister's brain.

I suggest that we may learn from America that if we have to select 15,000 men the only just and efficient way to proceed is by statutory classification, whether it is by means of an Order in Council or not. We want a statutory classification. I cannot see how the hardship committee, which is purely advisory, will really help here. It seems to me to be a cowardly device for enabling the Secretary of State to say, "If you have a complaint, you can put it to somebody." But at least, if he has to have the committee, let him give it clear classifications.

It is, after all, the point of our Amendment to list the principles on which people should be permitted not to serve. We do not pretend that there are not difficulties involved, but we want to make it possible for the Secretary of State to come to the Report stage with the Clause rewritten, so that at least there will be clear definitions of these issues.

Mr. Paget

If the classifications were clear, what need would there be for a hardship committee?

Mr. Crossman

I was arguing the case that we should classify these categories in order to guide the committee, and also that, if the Secretary of State is to have power to make up such lists arbitrarily, he should give precise statutory instructions to the committee.

Let us look at the list contained in the Amendment. First, there is the man who is married. If the Secretary of State needs so few men he surely does not need to take married men. If he can get enough unmarried men, then he can exclude married men. Then there is the sole supporter of a widowed mother and the man who has dependants in receipt of National Service grants during his service.

Are we to be told that, by writing into the Bill a provision that he cannot take any sole supporter of a widowed mother, the Secretary of State will be short of mechanics or dentists? Of course not. He can safely lay down these principles, and that is the point of the Amendment.

I am absolutely convinced that this Bill is merely the harbinger of something far more important. The Bill is a selective draft among people who have already served, which is far the most unjust thing the right hon. Gentleman can do, and it will have to be replaced sooner or later—I hope that it will be before 1965—by a selective draft, based on sound and sensible principles and not on the retention of those who have already served. People will be willing to serve if it is seen that we have used this debate and this Bill to try to establish the principles on which selection can be carried out—principles based on both justice and efficiency.

Sir F. Maclean

I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) is right in thinking that this Bill is the harbinger of something better. I have expressed that hope but I cannot say that I feel as optimistic about it as he does. I am grateful to him for his Amendment, but I do not propose to vote for it. I do not propose to do anything but abstain on all the Amendments at this stage, because I feel that that is the best way in which one can show one's contempt for the Measure as a whole.

On the other hand, I think we should be grateful to hon. Members who have put forward the Amendment for giving us this opportunity to discuss various aspects of selective service, and I think that, for that reason, our discussion today will serve a very useful purpose. Of course, whatever anybody says, as has been pointed out already, we already have selective service. This Bill is making it more selective than it was before. As has also been pointed out, nobody has ever had anything else since the times of the levée en masse of the French Revolution—though one would think that that would make people less frightened of the idea than they are.

I think that exemptions of the type contained in the Amendment are the right way in which to tackle the problem. There are two main difficulties in the selective system. One is to limit the numbers when one has more men available than one needs. The other is, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, the hardship cases, and the resulting wastage. Both these difficulties can be met to a very large extent by exemptions. One can exempt all kinds of categories, especially categories such as those listed in the Amendment, and one can also exempt people who are of greater value to the national effort in other callings than they would be in the Army.

I think that if it was felt that it was still unfair that some men must serve in the Army—even if, under exemptions, service was limited to men who had no compassionate grounds for being out, were physically fit in every way and had a high enough standard of intelligence to make good soldiers—while others need not, I would be prepared to agree to having universal national service—not military service—in a sense that all young men of a certain age would be called up and directed into some occupation or another for a period of two years.

I do not believe that that is necessary however, because I cannot help feeling that, by exemptions, one would be channelling men into occupations where they were most needed, apart from those one kept in the Army. I do not feel that it is a good idea to have a ballot. I have never liked that very much. It seems unfair. It is all very well to say that it appeals to the sporting instincts of the British nation, but I do not think it works like that, and one would not get the men one wanted to the same extent as if one selected them. I am sure that a well thought out compromise between the American and German systems would be much more to the point in our case. I am sure that it is only by having a system of selective service that we can achieve the flexibility and the balance which we need and which at present is so sadly lacking in the Army.

The position will be even worse when conscription comes to an end. Suppose that my right hon. Friend finds that he needs fewer men. He could so adjust the draft as to ensure that he obtained fewer men. Should the situation deteriorate he could, without bringing in more Measures—by which time the existing crisis would be over, or we should be faced with another crisis before the Measure became law—do what the Germans and the Americans have done, and call up a few more men. He could cast his net more widely. Surely that is the right way.

Over all our discussions on this subject hangs the date in May, 1966, when the provisions of this Measure will no longer apply; when there will be no more men left to call up under the terms of this Bill, with the possible exception of the "Ever-Readies" if there are enough of them. I hope sincerely that by then the Government will have realised their mistake and will have profited from the experience gained by the operation of this Measure. I hope they will produce a more satisfactory, fairer and far-reaching Measure to give us the men that we need to fulfil our obligations, and to provide them as often and for as long as we need them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Unlike the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who wants more conscription, I want less. When the Parliamentary Labour Party decided some years ago to press for the ending of conscription I am quite certain that it did not mean that there should be a back-door entry by the extension by six months of the period of service for those already serving.

I feel that it is easy for a Government with a majority of over a hundred to press legislation through Parliament. It is fatally easy for them to ignore the suffering which is caused in the back streets and the back rooms in this country by that legislation. It is time that Ministers took account of human considerations as well as military, and, financial convenience and strategic considerations. I believe that Ministers know they are guilty of injustice. How much more must their consciences be troubled at calling up for a further six months' service married men, men who are the sole support of widows or men with dependants? If their consciences are not troubled, all I can say is that they ought to be. I regard it as monstrously unfair. If the Government cannot meet their commitments with 410,000 voluntary Service men, they ought to cut those commitments. I believe it wrong to conscript anyone in peacetime. It is even worse to call up men in the three categories which I have mentioned and worst of all to give such men an extra period of six months' service.

I know that it may be argued that relief may be obtained if exceptional hardship exists. That usually means a lasting illness, let us say, on the part of the wife or the widowed mother. I must acknowledge that releases have been granted on those grounds. But I maintain that there must be exceptional hardship in these categories whether illness exists or not. Surely the Secretary of State for War realises that to separate young men from their wives involves exceptional hardship. This unnatural separation of the sexes is wrong. It is even worse when a young mother is left alone at home—I do not think this is at all funny—to bring up her child. It is bad enough if he is to be away for two years. It is far worse to extend that period by another six months.

The other argument which is advanced is that hardship allowances are paid, so that there is a financial compensation. These hardship allowances are quite inadequate. In many cases the family, that is to say the wife or the children and the widowed mother, is often reduced to a National Assistance Board scale of living, and that is not the way to treat the families of men who, in any case, are being unfairly treated themselves. I repeat that hardship allowances do not compensate adequately for the loss of earnings. The average wage of the men is £15 a week and the Minister knows very well that these hardship allowances will in no way make up for that.

I believe that there is a combination of emotional and financial upset. I will quote an extract from a letter which I have received from a widowed mother whose husband was killed in the last world war while fighting the Japanese. She writes: The call-up causes broken homes and broken hearts. I know that I am only one of a million mothers, but my son is a good boy and my house is empty without him, to say nothing of taking the lad's cash out of the home. Mothers such as that are to have their troubles prolonged for an extra six months.

In many cases the National Service man is living in great poverty. I know of a young married man from Lancashire who is serving in Aldershot while his wife is in the North. He gets three free passes a year to see his wife. It is true that he gets a reduced fare on the railways, but even that reduced fare for that young man to go home and to see his wife in Lancashire costs him £3 10s. a time. I have been through the budgets of men who, by the time they have paid for all the necessities, such as extra food, have to be subsidised by their parents, if the parents can afford it.

I maintain that the Government are getting these men on the cheap. It has been admitted that the "Ever-Readies" will receive a bonus of £150 a year plus £50, but no bonus is to be paid to the National Service men. I appeal to the Secretary of State, who does not seem very interested at the moment, although he ought to be, to exempt these married men, those who are keeping widowed mothers and those who have dependants, on the ground of humanity alone. I ask him to consider that. If he cannot keep the Army going without calling up such men as these, it is time to close it down, but he can manage with a reduced number of men, and in my view he has no right to call up men in these categories.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I imagine that by now the Minister has been at least somewhat impressed by the views of hon. Members who have spoken about the need for some form of statutory exemption. This figure of 15,000 must be a fairly notional figure, but what we do now will serve as a pattern for what I am sure will be a repeated process which we shall have to consider.

The hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) talked about the difficulty of assessing hardship cases. Those of us who in 1944 began to deal with hardship cases at unit level know that it was patent that assessments were completely different from unit to unit and that by the time cases were considered at a higher level there was very little equity in the assessments. For that reason I am certain that there should be clear-cut exemptions which can be understood by everybody and which would give men who are called up some feeling that there is fairness in the situation. The whole attitude of the War Office to this question of married men is hopelessly out-of-date. It seems to me to stem from the days when to the Army it did not matter whether or not a man was married; whether or not the woman with whom he associated was his wife. It was a ruthless, harsh and unsympathetic attitude, which still exists to this day.

I would not feel so strongly about this now—and I have given up trying to attract the Minister's attention—were it not that only a few weeks ago I brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a case that demonstrates that, quite apart from the present provisions, the Army as it stands does not seem able to look after its married personnel. In my constituency I have a very well-known, old-established barracks, Whittington, from which a distinguished regiment was very recently posted to another depôt down on the coast. I found that some of the wives had been left behind, separated from their husbands. Worse than that, I found that some of those who had been left behind were in substandard quarters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred earlier today to the £16,000 million spent on defence, yet in this year we still have, not the people whom we are now considering, but men in the Regular Army being separated forcibly from their wives because their regiment is posted to a town two or three hundred miles away, and their wives being left behind in substandard houses.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said just now, the emotional burden imposed upon wives is ruthless and unfair, and something to which our people should not be subjected. It is not necessary that they should be subjected to it. The living conditions and interests of wives are vitally important, but what about the children? What about the absence of the father? In so many cases there is possibly a young wife with an infant child, and an older boy growing up without adequate parental control—and then we wonder that we get increases in juvenile delinquency! That is only one aspect of the matter, one contributory factor in the study of the things against which we have to fight in terms of juvenile delinquency.

I should have thought that the exemption of married men was something about which we should not have to argue. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East about conscription. I believe that if, for national defence, we cannot get troops by other means we have to bring in some form of conscription—but let it be rational and fair.

Another category covered by this series of Amendments comprises doctors. I should have thought that here was another case for very special consideration. The education of general practitioners—and there are not so many of those about these days—should be based on the widest possible spectrum of training and experience. For doctors to be continued in the Services beyond the absolute minimum time seems to be very much at variance with the nation's true interests. I do not believe that there is a shortage of doctors in the Services but, if there is, the Minister should again study the position. I must join with my hon. Friends in saying that exemptions of a clear-cut type are needed, otherwise we shall have injustice, frustration and unnecessary ill-feeling.

Mr. Profumo

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something now. A large number of these Amendments would have the effect of exempting certain classes of men from Retention under Clause 1, or from recall under Clause 2—according to their personal circumstances—so I should first like to say a general word about exemption of those categories on hardship grounds.

On general grounds of principle none of these Amendments is acceptable, and I should like to explain why. There has never been a definition of hardship categories from military service in any Statute. For example, I gave long consideration, when preparing this Bill, to the inclusion of exemptions for certain hardship cases. I thought of students, but I was satisfied that this was undesirable and might lead to further injustices. I am fully satisfied that the Labour Government had good reasons for not attempting definitions in the National Service Act, 1948.

Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example of what might happen if an attempt were made to define students, for instance. The definition might cover a man undergoing a correspondence course, an apprentice, a man studying for professional examinations in accountancy, banking, and so on—

Mr. Paget

To which Amendment is the Minister referring now?

Mr. Profumo

I am now referring to the whole group and giving an example.

Mr. Paget

Is there an Amendment dealing with students?

Mr. Profumo

What I am saying is that so far the discussion has dealt with exempting various people, and I am now trying to explain why I believe that, on general grounds, it is undesirable to try to define exempted categories, whether they be students or anyone else. If one has exemptions one must have certain categories, and I do not think it possible—

Mr. Paget

When a number of defined classes are given, I was wondering whether it was very helpful to discuss someone not included in any of the suggested classes.

Mr. Profumo

I do so because, later, there are Amendments in which students are mentioned, and I will give further examples, if I may. Statutory definitions might lead to cases going to courts. Any attempt to define exempted hardship categories would, in my view, lead to great pressure to widen those categories. I think that this is made clear by the number of exemptions proposed in the various Amendments. It would be impossible to draw a line which, I think, would bear equally fairly on everybody, and it is not possible in that case to estimate the effect of exempting particular categories in terms of numbers. A narrow field of exemption might lead to unfairness.

Another example is that on 30th June last, 28 per cent. of the whole-time National Service men on Army service were married. Not all would suffer greater hardship than some single men if they were retained for a further six months under Clause 1. Being married or having domestic responsibilities in themselves have never been recognised as comprising grounds for compassionate treatment. They are part of the circumstances of cases which must be looked at on their own merits.

8.45 p.m.

During the Second Reading, I announced the administrative arrangements for dealing with appeals on hardship grounds. They provide for cases to be dealt with by the War Office branch experienced in these matters, assisted by an advisory committee to be set up especially for this purpose. I am glad to tell the Committee that Lieut.-General Sir Reginald Denning, who is chairman of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, has accepted my invitation to be chairman of this committee, and with his wide experience of S.S.A.F.A. it seems to me that he will be a good chairman for this purpose. The rest of the committee I have not yet built up, because it seemed to me that I should invite a chairman of distinction, impartiality and understanding before I asked other people to come on the committee.

There will be provisions for deferment of recall under Clause 2 in exceptional circumstances which will enable cases to be examined. The effect of this batch of Amendments would be to exempt a wide class of National Service men from retention in the Army under Clause 1. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the National Service men will be retained on the same pay as Regular soldiers on three-year engagements. While they are retained under Clause 1. they will also have marriage allowance at the highest rate for Regular soldiers and will, of course, continue to be eligible for National Service grants. These arrangements should, I hope, ensure that men will not suffer financial hardship from service under Clause 1. Nevertheless, if such service is likely to cause hardship of any kind they will be able to appeal. Clear cases in which individuals wish to appeal against being retained will be dealt with at once by my Department as they have been all the time under the National Service Acts. Doubtful or borderline cases will be referred to the special advisory committee of which I have just spoken.

Where widowed mothers are concerned, such cases are at present dealt with sympathetically through normal channels. Where it can be shown, with supporting medical evidence, that a widowed mother is incapable, then compassionate discharge is usually agreed to. This is done under perfectly normal procedure and has not given rise to any real difficulty. There seems to be no good reason for putting specific exemptions in the Bill.

Mr. Snow

I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Does he not recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was speaking, he quoted a case where the present Lord Privy Seal proposed a Measure which included statutorily defined exemptions. Again, if the Americans can do it, why cannot we? Why are the circumstances so different?

Mr. Profumo

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of listening to the whole of my speech. I do not think that we can necessarily base our legislation on what is done in America in wholly different circumstances. The draft system is not comparable with anything I am talking about here. The draft system is a system for calling men up for a period of one, two or three years' service, which is quite different. What we are dealing with here is the retention for a special purpose of men who are now serving in Her Majesty's Army and who are wanted for special military reasons.

Mr. Snow

They are still human beings.

Mr. Profumo

That is why I am making arrangements which will meet the case. I told the House on Second Reading that I would try to make arrangements which, I believed, would deal with the exigencies and circumstances of these particular cases.

Two of the Amendments show the problem created by trying to arrange special exemptions, which is that they create in themselves anomalies. To set a date before which a retained man must be married assumes that greater hardship, if hardship there be, accrues to him than to a man who marries after that date. I am sure that the proposals in these Amendments are the wrong way to go about this particular problem. In my view, the only way in such special circumstances is to deal with the hardship or compassionate cases which arise, either because of marriage or the other conditions mentioned in the Amendments, by the methods which I have announced.

What about the Amendments which deal with Clause 2? The procedure which I have outlined for retained men will apply in general also to men who may be recalled under Clause 2. There will be provision for record offices to grant deferment of recall at once for up to 56 days to permit cases of hardship or compassion to be properly investigated. As I have already emphasised, it is possible that a sudden emergency might make it necessary for us to call up reservists with practically no notice, but should circumstances arise which permit the giving of more notice to men due for recall, their warning notices would contain advice on how to appeal against recall. If an individual thought that he had medical, hardship or other grounds for exemption, we should then consider the case immediately and, as far as possible, would exempt from recall any man whose case for exemption was properly established. I am sure that a procedure of this kind is the only practical one and that writing exemptions into the Bill is not in this case the answer.

This is illustrated by the batch of Amendments to Clause 2 which we are now considering. Some of these would lead to anomaly rather than to fair treatment. For instance, here again, a man who married during part-time service would not be exempted from recall on that account although those who were married before the commencement of whole-time National Service would be. A man who had dependants in receipt of National Service grants during his whole-time service would be exempt from recall even if he no longer had any dependants at that time.

I hope I have said enough in my comments on these and other Amendments to show the disadvantages and the injustice of attempting to write into a Bill statutory exemptions for one category or another. I hope that, in the light of my explanation and assurance, those who put their names to the various Amendments will not press for their acceptance.

Mr. Paget

Before commenting on what the right hon. Gentleman just said, I must say a word or two to hon. Members who took advantage of this series of Amendments to discuss generally the principles of selective service, particularly in the manner in which it was operated in America. That refers particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), the former hon. Member having the habit of making in almost any debate a speech that calls for an answer.

The question of this alleged necessity for selective service can always arise if one allows oneself to drift into a situation without having taken any steps to meet it. When it was decided to pass on to an all-professional Army, forecasts were made about the number of recruits who would be available. It can be said that those forecasts have worked out with amazing accuracy and they look like working out in that way in the future. Thus the Government have no kind of excuse for saying that they have not got the men they were led to expect they would have.

Equally, on the question of commitments, if one casts one's mind back to either 1957 or 1959 it seems that the commitments of the Army are now less than anyone at either of those dates had a right to expect. This is, in fact, the first time since the war when we have not had to find men for active service anywhere in the world.

Sir F. Maclean

Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is because, up to now, we have had an adequate Army? Is that not one of the reasons?

Mr. Paget

I do not quite see the point of that. I have been looking at the position to see what the Government had cause to anticipate. I was saying, regarding commitments, that the situation today is not only as good but better than the Government had any right to expect. I said that we do not have occasion to commit any men on active service. There is not a Mau Mau war or a Cyprus or anything like that on our hands at the moment. In Germany we are performing—in what the right hon. Gentleman chooses to call the Berlin crisis—a part in something that has been with us for the last fifteen years. But even with the Berlin crisis, we have scarcely half the men committed in Germany who, in 1957, in 1959 and now, we are obligated by treaty to provide.

In the rest of the world we have no sore spot at the moment. I can hardly think that the Government could have anticipated doing worse than defaulting on nearly half of our obligations in Germany. It seems odd that the Government are asking for conscripts on the ground that they are surprised at the present situation. I remember that, as a member of the Committee of the Army League, I was considering how the Army was to deal with this situation, and it was obvious to the Committee at that time that unless the commitments of the Army were re-allocated or new sources of recruitment were opened up it could not possibly meet its commitments on the basis of the recruits available. One naturally assumed that it would either re-allocate commitments or seek new sources of recruitment. It has done neither.

9.0 p.m.

I believe that by handing the main responsibility of bases to the Royal Air Force and by giving the Navy the duty to provide mobile marine forces, and in ways like that, our Army commitments could have been readjusted. I also believe that our fields of recruitment could have been enormously enlarged, both in the Commonwealth and in Europe. It is particularly in specialised services, which are generally of a substantially non-combatant variety, that our shortages fall. I remind the Secretary of State that the German Army, the Wehrmacht, in military terms was not an unformidable force. Even in the case of Rommel's Panzer divisions, nearly 30 per cent. of the personnel were foreigners, and a good many of them could not even speak German.

Therefore, for the specialised services in particular the argument that our field of recruitment has to be Britain, is not very realistic. While it is perfectly true that if we drifted into a situation which was there for everyone to see without taking a single step in advance, some of this Measure may be necessary, it certainly does not make a case on principle for the necessity of selective service in our situation.

Sir F. Maclean

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government were defaulting on their obligations in Europe. Does he think that that is a good thing, because it is part of his case that we are managing very nicely? That is one of the reasons why there is not a greater demand for men.

Mr. Paget

I entirely disapprove of our defaulting on our obligations in Europe.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)

The hon. and learned Gentleman must watch the borderlines of his argument. I do not think that it would be a good idea to pursue this point beyond the mere statement.

Mr. Paget

I entirely agree, Mr. MacPherson. I was tempted by an interruption to go rather wide. Perhaps you in the kindness of your heart will permit me to say one sentence. I think that we ought to have far more men in Germany, without selective service but with a proper re-allocation of commitments. We have 40,000 soldiers in bases, and I see no reason why they should be there. I think that we can get over our problem without selective service. I will say no more on that, because it is rather beyond the point.

I now deal with the Minister's speech. How many men does he want? We understood that it was 15,000. Is that right or not? If it is a problem of the difference between 165,000 and 180,000 during a period of shortage until the 180,000 materialise in perhaps two or two and a half years time, then we must look to see where we are to find those 15,000 men.

If that be the size of the problem, the right hon. Gentleman's observations that there have never been statutory exceptions, that the Labour Government had good reasons not to include statutory exceptions and that marriage has never been a ground for exemption, all make complete nonsense. I agree that not since the French Revolution have we had a levée en masse in the complete form. None the less, in theory at least, we had general National Service, the generality of the call-up was the rule and the exempted classes and individuals were the exception.

Now, we have something totally different. Exemption is the rule and only a small number—15,000—are to be called up. The matter is, therefore, being approached from the opposite point of view. Exemption is the rule and the rare exception has to be called up. Therefore, since exemption is the rule, it is more than reasonable to include classes, and fairly wide classes, among the exempt.

Let us see how those classes arise, considering the matter always within the question of providing the 15,000 men. Those hon. Members who have said that this is selective service, even if a particularly unfair form of it, are absolutely right. This is selective service. The question is, therefore, how we are to select. Within a measure, the selection has to be what the Government wants, that is, people in the categories which the Government want.

Equally, surely, in this process of selection, we should consider the men who are selected and particularly the individuals other than the men themselves—their wives, their dependants and their children—who may be affected by that selection. [Interruption.] We come to the economic aspect in subsequent Amendments. At present, we are considering cases in which particular hardship is caused either to the individual who is called up or those who are dependent upon him. If the Government are to have the classes whom they want, so should human considerations, when only such a small number—15,000—is required, have their classes too.

This is a large group of Amendments. Let us, therefore, run through the categories which are proposed. First, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others, suggests that the Clause shall not apply to any person who…was married at the time of his entry into army service as, or as the equivalent of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948". I have a subsequent Amendment which puts 1st December as the date. I chose that date simply because I believe that men should be exempted where they have entered into a commitment such as marriage in the anticipation that on a certain date they would be able to live a normal married life and look after their wives. If, suddenly and arbitrarily, after they have entered into this commitment the Government change the whole basis of it, that is a particularly unfair thing to do. In order to get 15,000 men, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Committee that he must have men who are married at this stage? I do not believe it for a moment. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes it or would tell the Committee anything of the sort.

I am seeking to secure a fairly defined class, and I am picking here in particular people who, bona fide, have entered into commitments affecting the lives of others and suddenly that legitimate expectation is taken away from them and taken away not because anything unexpected has happened to the Government but because the Government have taken no steps to meet the expected. Is not that a reasonable request?

Next, there is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. Need I say more than that? Does the right hon. Gentleman really need the sole supporters of widowed mothers? At present he is generally letting them out on compassionate grounds. Why not let them out in this case? The next is the category of those intending marriage. This again is a question of commitments fairly entered into, affecting other people, in which the Government's action suddenly changes the whole circumstances. If they had the banns put up, which is what this amounts to, when the Bill was introduced and they get married before the date when it comes into operation, they are people who should be legitimately exempted. Again, I ask the same question. In order to get a mere 15,000 men do the Government really mean that they have to interfere with all these arrangements, which may mean that there has been a commitment to rent or buy a house and a job has been waiting and all the arrangements have been made in expectation of a marriage for which the banns have been put up?

In a further Amendment we deal with general exceptional hardship, and in another Amendment we say that: This section shall not apply to any married man with children or whose wife is pregnant. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he really cannot do without some married men, is it reasonable to break up families or to interfere with the very special needs when a woman is bearing her first child, because that is the case here? I heard one hon. Member ask whether if we dealt with cases where a woman is pregnant it would not raise considerable difficulties. Surely not in the least.

9.15 p.m.

There will not be no notice. If when notice is received a man applies for exemption on the ground that his wife is pregnant, after the few months which will pass before the notice becomes operative, if there is any doubt about her pregnancy, the question will be medically easily decidable. There is an appropriate interval which ceases to make that in the least difficult to operate in practice. Again I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman—if in order to get a mere 15,000 men he feels that he must take some married men, does he really have to take the fathers of families, or immediately expected families?

I turn to the other cases, the recall cases which are broadly the same sort of compassionate cases but operating in Clause 2 as those with which we wish to deal under Clause 1. I return to the simple statement. It is the right hon. Gentleman's case that selective service generally is not only objectionable but unnecessary, but that nevertheless a form of compulsory service is necessary during the transitional period of some two or two and a half years between a volunteer Army of 165,000 and the date it reaches 180,000. At the most the number is 15,000 men and it is reducing to nothing over two and a half years. It is a form of call-up in which call-up is the exception and exemption the rule. It is a form of call-up unfair and admittedly unfair and directed to the Government's convenience.

Where people other than the man himself are concerned, his wife, his children, his mother and so on, in all conscience such men should be excepted from the numbers required to make up the 15,000. If the Government are asking for something unfair, at least let them do the best they can in the interest of the dependants to mitigate that unfairness. They can do it and they can admittedly get the men they want—a trivial figure of 15,000 reducing to nothing over a matter of two years. Surely these categories should be excepted.

Mr. Jack Jones

At the risk of being asked, What do you know about it?", I want to say a few words as an old soldier, one who claims to have taken an interest in the Army from the day he first joined it and who was sincerely sorry to leave it—I happen to have been the regimental quartermaster-sergeant and perhaps should have stayed in. After the inglorious display we had earlier this afternoon, I am surprised that we do not want more men.

However, there are some aspects which have not yet been mentioned. As hon. Members know, I am connected with a very big concern which can claim to look after its workpeople. As a welfare supervisor for that big organisation and the editor of a works magazine, I have to deal with a page, "Forces in and Forces out". We keep a clear and concise and up-to-date record of every boy who leaves us and every man who returns to us from the Army—at least, we hope that they are men when they return.

The Minister perhaps does not know that big industry has a tremendous stake in the serving soldier. A man goes away and breaks a line of promotion, leaving a job which is important. I believe that the Minister, in encouraging and asking men to stay on, will not get the better type of man he needs. What young soldier with ego and a desire to get promotion will go for that promotion if he finds, as he will, that the best men are to be preferred to be kept, rather than those who do not bother so much? It will be the bright boys and the good lads who seek to become efficient N.C.O.'s, and indeed those who go for commissions, who will be affected first, in my opinion.

The Minister may say that this is not in the Bill, but we know what goes on in the Army. It is not a question of what is in the Bill but of what happens in the Army, and the colonel, with his adjutant and lieutenant, in making a recommendation about who can be spared, will not spare the good ones as quickly as those who do not want to get on but only want to get home. To compel men to stay, therefore, will create a situation in which the Minister will not get the best out of those who are there, whoever they may be.

I want to speak now about the effect on the young married couple, quite apart from the question of the wife who cannot afford to become a mother while the husband is away, and those wives who go out to work while the husband is away, the people who plan their families and forcing people to break religious laws as a result of this Bill.

There is the case of the young man who makes arrangements with a company, and with his parents, indeed with his brothers and sisters—and I can give chapter and verse for this—to be able to pay his housing mortgage. There is considerable risk in taking on a debt for a specified period and guaranteeing help for that period. The young man now finds that at the end of the specified period the help ceases and his service is continued under the Bill. What is to happen to these people when the mortgage people say they want their money? I know the Minister will say that he will look at these things, but if I had my way with the Bill a Clause would be inserted whereby those who stay on to defend the interests of those who stay at home, who get the privilege of living in a free democracy, would get exactly the same wages during the period for which they stay as they would had they been allowed to come home. That is the solution to this kind of problem.

I turn back to the question of the industrial effects in my own great industry, though not so great today, due to the machinations of the Government, but I will not go into that, because this is the wrong time and place, and it would be out of order—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)

The last phrase of the hon. Gentleman was very pertinent, and I hope he will take it to heart. It is desirable that he should keep a little more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Jones

I went on to say, Mr. MacPherson, and I thought I had beaten you to it, that I should be out of order if I continued. One cannot dissociate the effects of this Bill upon industry, but I have been told by our Front Bench leaders that we shall come to such questions later on.

I can tell the Minister quite seriously and sincerely that the trade unions make arrangements for some absent members to pay their trade union contributions. My own union does this, and others do it too, and they consider that there are all sorts of obligations which may not be considered to be hardships. There is more hardship than that just affecting the emotional side of being away from a young wife and that sort of thing. There is real economic hardship, which might have very serious effects upon the industry of the country. I hope that the Minister will make up his mind about these things, and that he will look at some of these problems in a rather different light than he appears to want to do at the moment.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I am sorry that the Minister has dismissed the Amendments. He apparently can see no virtue in any of them. The Minister is a generous man, and has dealt humanely and kindly with many cases that I have brought to his notice, and I had expected him, out of the kindness of his heart, to accept at least one or two of these Amendments.

I want to make a special plea to the Minister in respect of two categories of people. I appreciate the difficulty he mentioned about some married men being called up and others not being called up, but what I find extremely difficult to understand is that the problems of the young married man who has children, and is often suffering acute hardship and anxiety, are often not brought to the notice of the Ministry. In many cases this happens simply because the young man concerned does not make the necessary application. Most of these young men are anxious to do their service, and do not like to think that they are in any way shirking their responsibilities.

A short time ago I brought to the attention of the Minister the case of a young National Service man whose family was homeless and was roaming the streets of Birmingham. The young man was sent to Tripoli. Of course, he ought never to have been called up. It may be said that his case would be considered by a hardship committee, but I do not understand the principles on which this committee works.

I suppose that if a man is called up for two years there is time in which to examine his position, but what happens when a man is asked to go on for another six months? What opportunity is there to argue his case as fully as it ought to be argued? Perhaps the Minister can tell us something more about how the hardship committee works.

When I put forward a case for exemption on the ground of hardship, a good deal of sympathy is extended to the individual, but that is about all. I have already referred to the young man who was called up and sent abroad, and what disturbs me at the moment is that a lot of young National Service men in Birmingham have no homes. If a young man of 18, 19, or 20, has a home in Birmingham today, he can consider himself fortunate, because in Birmingham there are between 50,000 and 60,000 families waiting for houses.

I am making a special plea for the young married man with children who has no home. I think that the Government ought to put these people in a special category. The young man to whom I referred was flown to Tripoli and then flown back to this country to help his wife and family. He was given two months leave to try to find a home for them. He then went back overseas. The Minister took his case up and saw that justice was done. Young married men with family responsibilities ought to be specially considered, and should not be made to suffer the anxiety of knowing that their families are homeless and in need of help while they are away.

9.30 p.m.

The other man is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. This is the only occasion on which I have found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in these debates. The part of his Amendment that specially appeals to me is that which deals with the sole supporter of a widowed mother. The Minister is quite right in saying that great sympathy is shown in these cases. Nevertheless, cases have been brought to my notice of young men who suffered the greatest anxiety because they had to leave their mothers. I am not referring to cases where the mothers are ill, or anything like that; I am approaching the question solely from the point of view of the moral support needed by a widowed mother. If the Minister would agree to exempt this category he would be doing something human. He would be showing that, as Secretary of State for War, he is seized of the need to show some humanity, and that he is trying to humanise his Department.

Nat many men would be involved, but this is a tremendously important question. The Minister has always said, "Give me the facts and we will go into the case and give it the most careful and sympathetic consideration." But I say that those people who have been serving, and who will be called upon to serve for another six months, should not have to appeal against that extra six months. Why not be generous? Although the Minister has spoken once, I ask him to tell the Committee that he will agree to exempt one or two of the categories referred to in the Amendments. If he does that he will earn the gratitude of the Committee and the country.

Mr. Mellish

I heard the Minister's reply. Whatever else we may say, whether we agree with him or not, we cannot deny his courtesy. He tried very hard to put forward what he regarded as the main objection to the principle behind the Amendments. He said that to write these provisions into a Bill, and to lay down these categories by law, would make the Bill unique, and he thought that it would be very unwise. I realise that I must answer that point.

Never before in our history have we had a Bill of this character, retaining only a certain type of man. It is against that background that I want to argue my case. If we were talking about the continuation of National Service, I agree that the Amendments would be inadequate and unreal. If we called up thousands of men in their age groups it would be unwise to define, in any form of legislation, exempted categories.

I pay this tribute. I believe that, in the main, those sitting on the tribunals to whom persons who are being called up have appealed have done a fair and honest job. Their yardstick has been whether there would be real heartache, and they have either exempted such persons or have deferred them for a long period. But that would not be the case here. This involves boys who have already been through this process. Many of them are in the Army despite having been to tribunals, but once in the Army they have done their best.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made a good point. The boy who has tried hard, who has done his best, who has shown keenness and initiative and has not tried to go home at every possible opportunity or to work the oracle with his commanding officer, will be punished for having been a good soldier. I was, for a short time, an officer commanding and I know that commanding officers will pick the right boys. I would not want a loafer to remain. He would be the first to go, and the bright boy would be my preference No. 1. Those with special aptitudes and abilities will be the ones to be kept on for the extra six months.

We have never learned from the Secretary of State which are the specialised grades to be retained. I gather that it will be such categories as engineers and signalmen. Again, the boys in the specialised corps like the Royal Engineers who have tried to study their job will be the first to be punished. It is, therefore, logical that if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the wording of the Amendment he should have a Schedule showing the categories of exemptions.

Let us be frank here. This is a wretched Bill, and once it is passed the Secretary of State will have so much trouble that it will drive him mad. He will receive many letters from all over the country. Notifications will arrive in the barrack rooms and two or three soldiers will learn that they are to be retained. Monstrous debates will go on then. Some will say, "Why should I be retained? You are not married or you have no dependants, but I have a widowed mother to support."

The third category mentioned in the Amendment is that of a man who During the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants. If a boy has already served for two years and has dependants living almost entirely on National Service grants, great hardship will be involved if he has to be retained for another six months. To whom is he to appeal? He will appeal to the Secretary of State and the case will be referred to a Committee presided over by a man who is very fair and who served with the S.S.A.F.A. My experience with the Association has been pretty good—it got me out of the Far East. But let us suppose that the soldier concerned applied on grounds of hardship when he first went into the Army but was rejected. The Army is quite likely to take the line that if it exempts a certain soldier it will have a flood of further accusations.

Mr. Ross

If I understand the position correctly, the man has no such right. The application goes to the Secretary of State and it is only the marginal cases that will go through the appeals procedure. The appeal is from the Secretary of State. It is shocking.

Mr. Mellish

I am falling over backwards in trying to be generous to the Secretary of State. He has had such a bashing in the first three hours that I should like to be generous. I assume from the speech made by the Minister that a special committee will be established. The right hon. Gentleman did give the name of a very important personage who would be the chairman. I think he said that it would be a lieutenant-general, and that this committee will be responsible for considering the applications of those men who claim that they have hardship grounds. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Profumo

The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of listening to my speech and therefore I will try to see whether I can put him right. As I announced during the Second Reading debate these cases will in the normal way—as do all appeals from National Service men trying to get out of the Army—go to a special branch of the War Office. But because I recognise that here there are special circumstances, I am proposing to set up a hardship committee. For the benefit of those hon. Members who did not hear my speech I announced that I had invited Lieut.-General Denning, who is chairman of S.S.A.F.A. to be chairman of the committee. He is not now in the Army. He has accepted my invitation to be chairman of this new hardship committee to advise me on special cases.

If I may be forgiven for repeating myself, I also told the Committee that the remainder of the members of this special hardship committee have not yet been announced. I thought it right to obtain an acceptance from the chairman before approaching other people, such as representatives of the trade unions, the employers and others connected with education and so on. This committee will deal with special cases upon which the Departmental machine would desire to have advice.

Mr. Mellish

I see one grave danger. Who will define the word "special"? I should have thought that it would be much better if all cases, irrespective of whether the War Office or anyone else considered them to be special, came before such a committee for consideration, rather than that the War Office should define what are special cases.

Mr. Paget

We have heard about the appointment of Lieut.-General Denning but I hope that we shall hear no more of him because this is the responsibility of the Minister. The idea of the Minister escaping from his responsibility by quoting some general or other as his adviser is something that we cannot accept.

Mr. Profumo

I cannot accept that statement. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is not what I said. I have always made clear what is my intention. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman had only "one foot on dry land" and that he was dealing in those days with the sea. But on Second Reading—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am accepting the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not dealing with this Bill during the Second Reading, and I put it in that way.

I have made it perfectly clear that the responsibility must be mine. That is what I have argued all the way through and, therefore, I cannot set up a statutory appeal body. It is my responsibility and I am merely saying that this hardship committee will advise me.

Mr. Mellish

Perhaps I may now be permitted to intervene in my own speech.

I am one who considers it not a bad idea to receive advice from an outside body. It is my view that this sort of committee is a good idea. We differ on a good many things and hon. Members on this side of the committee may hold different opinions. But I repeat to the Minister that I consider it of great importance, and there are many other hon. Members on this side of the Committee who believe as I do, that conscription is fair in principle so long as it can be shown that the state of the country is such as to justify the imposition of conscription. But the Minister has never tried to justify that. He has produced a half-baked scheme involving 15,000 men, and there is even vagueness about whether they will be called up. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman the right to do this we have to have all this involved machinery.

I know that as a result the Minister will be involved in an avalanche of letters and requests. There will be rows and there will be Adjournment debates on the subject. And for what? For 15,000 men. We have heard before that these 15,000 men are to be called up to deal with the Berlin crisis. The Russians must be laughing their heads off at the thought that 15,000 men could make all that difference. I appeal to the Minister to realise that what he has done is to make an absolute farce of what I consider could be a fair and proper procedure.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendments in their present form, he should introduce a new Schedule to the Bill setting out a complete list of those people who will be exempt. Then men could say to themselves that the Army was treating them fairly, and that if they came within any of the categories mentioned in the Schedule, they would receive special priority and special consideration. Otherwise, we shall get back to the position to which I have already referred where the man who spent most of his time trying to get out of the Army, the man who did not pull his weight, is the man who will get preference because he will not be the one who is wanted. He will get out of the Army and a decent fellow will be caught by the Army.

We talk about recruitment, but how can we ask people to join any organisation which applies a scheme which is as unfair as that? The modern Army above all must be an Army which men can join with honour and integrity knowing that they will be given a decent life while they are in it and will be well treated at the end of their service. It cannot be said that that applies to these young people. After having given two years of their young lives to the Army they are to be told that, for all sorts of reasons which the Minister has vaguely put forward, they must serve for another six months.

Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)

rose in

Division No. 40.	AYES	9.46 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Grant, Rt. Hon. William	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Allason, James	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Arbuthnot, John	Green, Alan	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Humphrey	Grimston, Sir Robert	Page, John (Harrow, west)
Barber, Anthony	Gurden, Harold	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Barlow, Sir John	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Pearson, Frank (Citheroe)
Barter, John	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Peel, John
Bell, Ronald	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Pilkington, Sir Richard
Berkeley, Humphry	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Pitman, Sir James
Bidgood, John C.	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Pitt, Miss Edith
Biffen, John	Hastings, Stephen	Pott, Percivall
Biggs-Davison, John	Hay, John	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bingham, R. M.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bishop, F. P.	Hendry, Forbes	Prior, J. M. L.
Black, Sir Cyril	Hiley, Joseph	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bossom, Clive	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Bourne-Arton, A.	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pym, Francis
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hobson, John	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brewis, John	Hocking, Philip N.	Ramsden, James
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter	Holland, Philip	Rawlinson, Peter
Brooman-White, R.	Hollingworth, John	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Hopkins, Alan	Rees, Hugh
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Hornby, R. P.	Renton, David
Bryan, Paul	Hornsby- Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Buck, Antony	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Ridsdale, Julian
Bullard, Denys	Hughes-Young, Michael	Rippon, Geoffrey
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Hulbert, Sir Norman	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Burden, F. A.	Hurd, Sir Anthony	Roots, William
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	James, David	Russell, Ronald
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	St. Clair, M.
Cary, Sir Robert	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Chataway, Christopher	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Sharples, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Shaw, M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Joseph, Sir Keith	Skeet, T. H. H.
Cooke, Robert	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Cooper, A. E.	Kershaw, Anthony	Smithers, Peter
Corfield, F. V.	Kirk, Peter	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Costain, A. P.	Langford-Holt, J.	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Coulson, J. M.	Leather, E. H. C.	Stevens, Geoffrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Crowder, F. P.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stodart, J. A.
Cunningham, Knox	Lindstead, Sir Hugh	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Curran, Charles	Litchfield, Capt. John	Storey, Sir Samuel
Dance, James	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Studholme, Sir Henry
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Longden, Gilbert	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Deedes, W. F.	Loveys, Walter H.	Talbot, John E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Tapsell, Peter
Doughty, Charles	MacArthur, Ian	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
du Cann, Edward	McLaren, Martin	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Emery, Peter		Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	McMaster, Stanley R.	Temple, John M.
Errington, Sir Eric	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Farey-Jones, F. W.	Maddan, Martin	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Farr, John	Maginnis, John E.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Fell, Anthony	Marshall, Douglas	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Finlay, Graeme	Marten, Neil	Turner, Colin
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Foster, John	Mawby, Ray	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Vane, W. M. F.
Gardner, Edward	Mills, Stratton	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Gibson-Watt, David	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Vickers, Miss Joan
Gilmour, Sir John	Morgan, William	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Glover, Sir Douglas	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)	Nabarro, Gerald	Walker, Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Neave, Airey	Ward, Dame Irene
Goodhart, Philip	Nugent, Sir Richard	Webster, David
Goodhew, Victor	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gower, Raymond	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 156.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)	Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)	Woodhouse, C. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wise, A. R.	Yates, William (The Wrekin)	Mr. Whitelaw and Mr, Noble

NOES
Ainsley, William	Hilton, A. V.	Parker, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Holman, Percy	Pavitt, Laurence
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Holt, Arthur	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Awbery, Stan	Houghton, Douglas	Peart, Frederick
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pentland, Norman
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hoy, James H.	Popplewell, Ernest
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Prentice, R. E.
Benson, Sir George	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Blackburn, F,	Hunter, A. E.	Probert, Arthur
Blyton, William	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Randall, Harry
Boyden, James	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Redhead, E. C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Janner, Sir Barnett	Reynolds, G. W.
Brockway, A. Fenner	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Rhodes, H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Callaghan, James	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Ross, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Short, Edward
Chapman, Donald	Kelley, Richard	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Collick, Percy	Kenyon, Clifford	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Skeffington, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	King, Dr. Horace	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Crosland, Anthony	Ledger, Ron	Small, William
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Snow, Julian
Diamond, John	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Sorensen, R. W.
Dodds, Norman	Logan, David	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Loughlin, Charles	Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	McInnes, James	Steele, Thomas
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Evans, Albert	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)	Stonehouse, John
Fernyhough, E.	McLeavy, Frank	Stones, William
Fitch, Alan	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Symonds, J. B.
Fletcher, Eric	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mapp, Charles	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Marsh, Richard	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mason, Roy	Thornton, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mayhew, Christopher	Thorpe, Jeremy
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)		Wade, Donald
Ginsburg, David	Mellish, R. J.	Wainwright, Edwin
Gooch, E. G.	Mendelson, J. J.	Warbey, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Millan, Bruce	Weitzman, David
Gourlay, Harry	Milne, Edward J.	Whitlock, William
Greenwood, Anthony	Mitchison, G. R.	Wigg, George
Grey, Charles	Monslow, Walter	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Moody, A. S.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Moyle, Arthur	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gunter, Ray	Mulley, Frederick	Winterbottom, R. E.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)	Neal, Harold	Woof, Robert
Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Oram, A. E.	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hannan, William	Owen, Will
Hayman, F. H.	Padley, W. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Herbison, Miss Margaret	Paget. R. T.	Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Question put accordingly, That the proposed words be there added:—

Division No. 41.	AYES	[9.55 p.m.
Ainsley, William	Callaghan, James	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Collick, Percy	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Awbery, Stan	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Galpern, Sir Myer
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Crosland, Anthony	Ginsburg, David
Bence, Cyril	Crossman, R. H. S.	Gooch, E. G.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Benson, Sir George	Diamond, John	Gourlay, Harry
Blackburn, F.	Dodds, Norman	Greenwood, Anthony
Blyton, William	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Grey, Charles
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Boyden, James	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Grimond, J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Evans, Albert	Gunter, Ray
Brockway, A. Fenner	Fernyhough, E.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Fitch, Alan	Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Fletcher, Eric	Hannan, William

The Committee divided: Ayes 155. Noes 223.

Hayman, F. H.	Mapp, Charles	Silverman, Jullus (Aston)
Herbison, Miss Margaret	Marsh, Richard	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hilton, A. V.	Mason, Roy	Skeffington, Arthur
Holman, Percy	Mayhew, Christopher	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Holt, Arthur	Mellish, R. J.	Small, William
Houghton, Douglas	Mendelson, J. J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Millan, Bruce	Snow, Julian
Hoy, James H.	Milne, Edward J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Mitchison, G. R-	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Monslow, Walter	Spriggs, Leslie
Hunter, A. E.	Moody, A. S.	Steele, Thomas
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Moyle, Arthur	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Mulley, Frederick	Stonehouse, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Neal, Harold	Stones, William
Janner, Sir Barnett	Oram, A. E.	Symonds, J. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Owen, Will	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Padley, W. E.	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Paget, R. T.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Parker, John	Thornton, Ernest
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pavitt, Laurence	Thorpe, Jeremy
Kelley, Richard	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Wade, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford	Peart, Frederick	Wainwright, Edwin
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Pentland, Norman	Warbey, William
King, Dr. Horace	Popplewell, Ernest	Weitzman, David
Ledger, Ron	Prentice, R. E.	Whitlock, William
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Wigg, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Probert, Arthur	Wilkins, W. A.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Pursey, Cm dr. Harry	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Logan, David	Randall, Harry	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Loughlin, Charles	Redhead, E. C.	Winterbottom, R. E.
McInnes, James	Reynolds, G. W.	Woof, Robert
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Rhodes, H.	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
McLeavy, Frank	Robertson, John (Paisley)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Rose, William	Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.
Manuel, A. C.	Short, Edward

NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Curran, Charles	Hirst, Geoffrey
Allason, James	Dance, James	Hobson, John
Arbuthnot, John	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hocking, Philip N.
Atkins, Humphrey	Deedes, W. F.	Holland, Philip
Barber, Anthony	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Hollingworth, John
Barlow, Sir John	Doughty, Charles	Hopkins, Alan
Barter, John	du Cann, Edward	Hornby, R. P.
Bell, Ronald	Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Emery, Peter	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Berkeley, Humphry	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hughes-Young, Michael
Bidgood, John C.	Errington, Sir Eric	Hulbert, Sir Norman
Biffen, John	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Hurd, Sir Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John	Farr, John	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bingham, R. M.	Fell, Anthony	James, David
Bishop, F. P.	Finlay, Graeme	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Black, Sir Cyril	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Bossom, Clive	Foster, John	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bourne-Arton, A.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Gardner, Edward	Joseph, Sir Keith
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gibson-Watt, David	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Brewis, John	Gilmour, Sir John	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Bromley-Davenport.Lt. -Col. SirWalter	Glover, Sir Douglas	Kershaw, Anthony
Brooman.White, R.	Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)	Kirk, Peter
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Langford-Holt, J.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Goodhart, Philip	Leather, E. H. C.
Bryan, Paul	Goodhew, Victor	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Buck, Antony	Gower, Raymond	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bullard, Denys	Grant, Rt. Hon. William	Linstead, Sir Hugh
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Litchfield, Capt. John
Burden, F. A.	Green, Alan	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Grimston, Sir Robert	Longden, Gilbert
		Loveys, Walter H.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Gurden, Harold	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	MacArthur, Ian
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	McLaren, Martin
Cary, Sir Robert	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Macleod, Rt. Hn.Iain (Enfield, W.)
Chataway, Christopher	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	McMaster, Stanley R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Cooke, Robert	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Maddan, Martin
Cooper, A. E.	Hastings, Stephen	Maginnis, John E.
Corfield, F. V.	Hay, John	Marshall, Douglas
Costain, A. P.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Marten, Neil
Coulson, Michael	Hendry, Forbes	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Hiley, Joseph	Mawby, Ray
Crowder, F. P.	Hill, Mrs Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cunningham, Knox	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Mills, Stratton

More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Morgan, William	Rees, Hugh	Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Renton, David	Temple, John M.
Nabarro, Gerald	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Neave, Airey	Ridsdale, Julian	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Nugent, Sir Richard	Rippon, Geoffrey	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian	Roots, William	Turner, Colin
Osborn, John (Hallam)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Russell, Ronald	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)	St. Clair, M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Scott-Hopkins, James	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)	Sharpies, Richard	Vickers, Miss Joan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Shaw, M.	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Peel, John	Skeet, T. H. H.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth	-Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)	Walker, Peter
Pilkington, Sir Richard	Smithers, Peter	Ward, Dame Irene
Pitman, Sir James	Spearman, Sir Alexander	Webster, David
Pitt, Miss Edith	Stanley, Hon. Richard	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pott, Percivall	Stevens, Geoffrey	Whitelaw, William
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stodart, J. A.	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Prior, J, M. L.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Storey, Sir Samuel	Wise, A. R.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John	Studholme, Sir Henry	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Proudfoot, Wilfred	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)	Woodhouse, C. M.
Pym, Francis	Talbot, John E.	Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Tapsell, Peter
Ramsden, James	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rawlinson, Peter	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)	Mr. Chichester-Clark and
		Mr. Noble.

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Division No. 42.]	AYES	[10.5 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Grimston, Sir Robert
Aitken, W. T.	Cooke, Robert	Gurden, Harold
Allason, James	Cooper, A. E.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Arbuthnot, John	Corfield, F. V.	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Atkins, Humphrey	Costain, A. P.	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Barber, Anthony	Coulson, Michael	Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Barlow, Sir John	Craddock, Sir Beresford	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Barter, John	Crowder, F, P.	Hastings, Stephen
Bell, Ronald	Cunningham, Knox	Hay, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Curran, Charles	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Berkeley, Humphry	Dance, James	Hendry, Forbes
Bidgood, John c.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hiley, Joseph
Biffen, John	Deedes, W. F.	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Biggs-Davison, John	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Bingham, R. M.	Doughty, Charles	Hobson, John
Bishop, F. P.	Drayson, G. B.	Hocking, Philip N.
Black, Sir Cyril	du Cann, Edward	Holland, Philip
Bossom, Clive	Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Hollingworth, John
Bourne-Arton, A.	Emery, Peter	Hopkins, Alan
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hornby, R. P.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Errington, Sir Eric	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Brewis, John	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter	Farr, John	Hughes-Young, Michael
Brooman-White, R.	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hulbert, Sir Norman
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Foster, John	Hurd, Sir Anthony
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bryan, Paul	Gardner, Edward	James, David
Buck, Antony	Gibson-Watt, David	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bullard, Denys	Gilmour, Sir John	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Glover, Sir Douglas	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Burden, F. A.	Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Joseph, Sir Keith
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Goodhart, Philip	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Goodhew, Victor	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Gower, Raymond	Kershaw, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert	Grant, Rt. Hon. William	Kirk, Peter
Chataway, Christopher	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Langford-Holt, J.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Green, Alan	Leather, E, H. C.