§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)
On a point of order. On the Order Paper there are two Amendments, seeking to alter the Title of the Bill, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the names of others of my hon. Friends, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "Contributions" and to insert "Poll Tax", and in line 23, after "Contributions", to insert "and Poll Tax". May I ask whether you propose to call those Amendments, Sir Gordon?
§ Mr. Houghton
Then may I respectfully submit that Clause 2 is the only Clause in the Bill that refers to the Title of the Bill? The only other place where one finds a Title to the Bill is at the top of page 1 of the Bill. You ruled out of order an earlier Amendment to the Preamble as being contrary to the usual form, and—
§ Mr. Houghton
Then may I seek your guidance, Sir Gordon? Clause 2 is the only place in the Bill where the Title of the Bill is referred to. If we want to alter the Title, will you please tell us at which further stage of the Bill this can be done? Otherwise, as an Amendment to change the Title of the Bill has not been selected, we are not able to bring about what is, from our point of view, a fundamental alteration.
§ Mr. Houghton
What you have said, Sir Gordon, compels us to vote against the Clause. If we cannot change the Title of the Bill, we prefer to have no Title at all. It will be a Bill without a name, and it does not deserve one.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
There is one thing about the Clause as it stands, and that is that we are not obliged to call this Bill the National Health Service Contributions Act when it becomes law. In the Scottish Grand Committee and elsewhere we have had many long arguments about whether a Bill should contain the word "may" or the word "shall." For the first time, I welcome the absence of the word shall." Clause 2 reads:This Act may be cited as the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1961.The Minister of Health can take it for granted that we on this side of the Committee will never cite it as the National Health Service Contributions Act. It would be out of order to discuss it, as it was not selected, but we had put down an Amendment to this Clause. I did not entirely agree at first with the suggested new Title—Poll Tax Act—but I was prepared to accept a compromise of having English spelling and Cockney pronunciation. But when we get this insult of its being called "National Health Service Contributions Act," more or less parading a Parliamentary "Soo's lug" as a silken purse, we have a right to express our dissatisfaction.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
Will my hon. Friend translate that phrase for the benefit of English Members?
§ Mr. Ross
I am sure that by this time its meaning will have been perfectly understood.
This triple insult, this repetition of a Title to which we have objected all through, does not respectabilise the Bill. People outside the House of Commons will know it as the "Poll Tax Act".
I would like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to tell me something about subsection (2), which says: 698Without prejudice to the operation, in relation to any matters arising out of this Act, of any provisions of the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1960, relating to Northern Ireland, this Act, except subsection (4) of the preceding section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.We have been compelled to consider the words of Parliamentary draftsmen these days with greater circumspection, because we and the Government have discovered that, like all mortals, draftsmen are fallible. I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain what the subsection means. It is a difficult and obscure way of putting something that may well be relatively simple.
It refers to Clause 1 (4), in which there is a reference to Northern Ireland, but there is also a reference to Northern Ireland in Clause 1 (5). Does that mean that subsection (5) will apply to Northern Ireland? This might be something to do with the provisions of the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1960, and Clause 1 (5) relates to Section 4 of the principal Act, which is the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957. There is some justification for asking the Minister to give us an adequate and lucid explanation of subsection (2).
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)
Without referring to the terms of the Amendment which was not selected, perhaps I can briefly refer to the Title of the Bill. When the Amendment concerning the Title was tabled, before I knew whether it was to be selected, my right hon. and learned Friend and I considered this matter. The Title of the Bill is what it is—the National Health Service Contributions Bill—so as to achieve some consistency in the nomenclature on the Statute Book.
§ Mr. Willis
On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to reply to an Amendment which has not been moved?
§ Mr. Barber
By entitling the Bill as we have, we have been consistent with previous Acts of Parliament dealing with the same or similar matters. If we had chosen any other Title, quite apart from 699 the fact that it would have been inappropriate, it would have been necessary to pass legislation to change the names of certain other Acts, including. for example, the National Insurance Act, 1946.
The Committee will remember that it was under the Act of 1946—and I hope that the Committee will note the date—that it was first made possible to have a health contribution as part of the National Insurance contribution. We would have had to change the name of that Act and, in view of the heavy legislative programme which we have ahead of us and in the interests of consistency, it is as well to leave the Title as it is.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to subsection (2). I will confess that when I first saw the subsection, it caused me some difficulty. I can best explain the way in which the subsection operates by telling the Committee that there are, as it were, three propositions about Northern Ireland in this subsection. The first is that, with one exception to which I shall come in a moment, the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland, that is to say, it will not form part of the law of Northern Ireland.
The second proposition, which deals with the exception, is that Clause 1 (4), to which the hon. Member referred—
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
Further to that point of order. Can we have your Ruling, Sir Gordon, before the Minister seeks to make a ruling?
§ Mr. Barber
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to Clause 1 (4), which is mentioned in Clause 2 (2). As the hon. Member has mentioned it and as it is contained in subsection (2), it seems to me that I would be in order in referring to Clause 1 (4). I was seek- 700 ing to explain subsection (2) and showing how Clause 1 (4), which is mentioned, affected the Bill. If I am out of order, I cannot answer the hon. Member's question in that respect. I was making these observations only in answer to questions put by him.
§ Mr. Barber
I have already pointed out that the first proposition about Northern Ireland in subsection (2) is that, with the one exception of Clause 1 (4), which is mentioned in Clause 2, the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland. Thus, because of what is stated in Clause 2, Clause 1 (4) will not form part of the law of Northern Ireland. That is not by virtue of Clause 1 alone, but by virtue of what is stated in Clause 2 (2).
When the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, was drafted, it was appreciated that there were two respects in which, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Parliament of Northern Ireland might not be competent to enact parallel legislation.
The principal Act applies to employees of the Crown and the Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot, in general, legislate with respect to the Crown. The principal Act also contains special provisions for the application of the Act to masters and members of the crews of foreign-going ships, and the Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot legislate in matters outside Northern Ireland.
For those reasons, Section 5 of the principal Act expressly empowered the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass legislation for any purposes similar to these. The provisions of that Act necessarily form part of the law of Northern Ireland and it follows that the provisions in this Bill, which incorporate the Section concerned, that is to say, Clause 1 (4), must also form part of the law of Northern Ireland, and that is done by Clause 2 (2).
The third proposition is contained in the opening words of the subsection:Without prejudice to the operation, in relation to any matters arising out of this Act, of any provisions of the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1960, relating to Northern Ireland…The National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1960 contain provisions which form part 701 of the law of Great Britain, but merely relate to Northern Ireland. It has been the general practice in the National Insurance Acts to insert a provision that each such Act shall not extend to Northern IrelandWithout prejudice to the operation, in relation to any matters arising out of this Act, of any provision of the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1960, relating to Northern Ireland…The purpose of those words is to ensure that provisions which form part of the law of Great Britain, but relating to Northern Ireland, shall apply to contributions and benefits, as modified by the successive National Insurance Acts.
In the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, a similar formula was employed, and I should have thought that it was clearly right to include the same formula in this Bill, which refers back to the 1957 Act, which is described as the principal Act.
§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that we would vote against the Clause. We will vote against it not only because we disapprove of the Bill, but because it is to be called the National Health Service Contributions Act. What we call it does not matter. I understand that in the debate in another place yesterday it was said that if one African wants to abuse another he calls him "a federation" so deep is the resentment of the Africans against the Federation. I am certain that, as the people of this country come to realise the impact of the Bill, whatever name the Government give it, ordinary people will react against this Clause in the way as many Africans have reacted against federation.
I said that the Bill has nothing to do with the National Health Service. It is a pre-Budget Bill. Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have introduced supplementary Finance Bills after having won the support of the country by introducing attractive Bills just before an election. The Government are introducing a pre-Finance Bill. If they had been honest, they would have called it that.
If any hon, Member doubts what I am saying, the fact that from the start the Bill has been in the care of Treasury Ministers, and that a Treasury Minister is replying to the debate today, proves 702 that what we are debating is not the National Health Service, but the Government's tactics to secure about £50 million for the Revenue. Instead of securing it in a decent and progressive way by taking the money from people according to their capacity to pay, they are doing it by introducing a poll tax element which wilt bear most heavily on the poorer people of the country. I know that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I wish that the Government would be honest and call the Bill what it really is. I am delighted that my hon. Friends intend to show what we think about the Clause by voting against it.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)
Never before have I heard the name of a Bill so misused. One may approve or disapprove of the Bill, and it is obvious that the Opposition disapprove, but for the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) to say that the label on the front does not show what is inside is nonsense. To vote against it for that reason is being obstructive, if that is the right word. It is simply playing follow the leader.
As I have said, one may approve or disapprove of the Bill, but it is clearly a National Health Service Contributions Bill. Because of the increase in the costs of the Health Service, rightly or wrongly, these increases are being made, but to say that the Bill has anything to do with a Finance Bill is practically accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of embezzlement.
§ Mr. Doughty
Interruptions of that kind merely show that hon. Gentlemen do not understand the purpose of the Bill or the purpose of Finance Bills.
The money obtained under this Bill can be applied only for the expenses of the National Health Service. Money obtained under a Finance Bill can be used for such purposes as the House decides. It may be for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or for other purposes. The two must he kept separate and apart.
That is why this Bill has the same name as the 1957 Act, except that it has a different year attached to it. To dissociate the two Bills which so clearly go together is simply an effort to muddle legislation, 703 to muddle the people of this country, and not to follow common sense.
§ Mr. Willis
Far from wishing to muddle the people, we desire to demonstrate more clearly than the Clause does what the Bill does. As has often been said, it is designed to levy a poll tax.
§ Mr. Doughty
I have carefully kept off that phrase, for the simple reason that it is referred to in the Amendment which has not been selected. It was not possible for me to refer to that particular form of words. Is it in order for the hon. Gentlement to do so?
§ Mr. Willis
I have no intention of arguing in favour of or against a poll tax. I was pointing out that we were anxious to let the people know what they were paying. I was not discussing whether it was better or worse to have one form of taxation or another, but that the people should be told quite clearly what they are paying, and what they are paying is a poll tax.
The Title of the Bill, as set out in Clause 2 (1), is misleading. That is why we shall vote against the Clause. Because of the wording of this Clause, is it possible for the Bill to be called anything else? Could one refer to the Bill by any other name? As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, subsection (1) says that the Act "may be cited as" and not "shall be cited as" the National Health Service Contributions Act, and so on. Will it be in order to refer to the Act in any other terms? Will it be legally possible to do that? We ought to have some information on this point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, we discussed this point at length in the Scottish Grand Committee. We did so because we like to see Bills correctly worded. We do not like this slipshod method of putting across these projects. As has been pointed out during the course of our discussions, these provisions might more accurately be referred to as tax provisions. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury might address himself to that matter before we divide on the Clause.
§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) takes a great interest in this subject. Surely he was less than accurate in his description of the Bill, for these reasons. First, these contributions bear the same relationship to the National Health Service as did the original contributions. They may be different in degree, but they are the same in principle. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Secondly, these contributions are no more a poll tax than the original contributions, because those were levied from people irrespective of their means. Surely hon. Members opposite can see some distinction between money which is collected—
§ Mr. Willis
On a point of order. A short while ago, Sir Gordon, you ruled that I was not allowed to discuss the contributions on their merits, as opposed to something else, or to refer to them in terms of a poll tax. I venture to suggest that that is what is being done at the moment by the hon. Member.
§ The Chairman
An hon. Member cannot call it a poll tax in his argument for amending the Clause, but it is almost impossible for me to stop occasional references to those words.
§ Mr. Gower
I made a passing reference to what had already been said. Hon. Members opposite can surely see some distinction between money collected in this way and quite accurately described as a contribution—which will be used for a specific purpose, namely, the National Health Service—and money collected in the form of general taxation, to be used for the general purposes of the Treasury, in any connection.
§ Mr. Gower
Whether the hon. Member calls it a tax or not, cannot he see the difference between money collected for an express purpose and money collected in the form of general taxation for any purpose? If he cannot see that difference it is useless to continue the argument. Whatever the merits or demerits of this contribution, the Title of the Bill fully describes its purpose.
§ Mr. W. Hamilton
Both hon. Members who have spoken from the benches 705 opposite have said that the money to be raised in this case is for a specific purpose. I should like to be clear about that. Is all the money that will be raised under the Clause to be devoted to the National Health Service? Can the Secretary of State for Scotland say that all the money raised in Scotland as a result of this increase will be devoted to the Health Service in Scotland? I hope that that point will be made clear.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a supplementary Finance Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has said that we are, in effect, accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of embezzlement. I want to make it clear to the country that that is precisely the charge that we are making.
§ Mr. Doughty
The hon. Member knows what I was referring to. He is entitled to say that the charge is too high, but to suggest that this money is going into the Consolidated Fund with the rest of taxation money, to be used for general purposes, is accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of embezzlement.
§ Mr. Hamilton
I want to get this clear. We have never had an assurance that all this money will be devoted to the Health Service. I call attention again to the fact that we are here discussing something which involves Scotland and we still have no representative from the Scottish Office with us. We must continue to make these protests at the continued absence of a representative of the Scottish Office on a matter which vitally concerns all the Scottish people.
§ Mr. Ross
In his opening speech—I presume that I can refer to it as his opening speech, and that he will reply to the points that have been raised—the Economic Secretary said that he had to insist on this Title, in the interests of consistency. He should have a look at the Parliamentary history of the matter, as should his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). Does not the hon. and learned Member see any difference between these proceedings and the proceedings on the Measures of 1957 and 1958? Does not he wonder about the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does not 706 he wonder why the Economic Secretary is here?
§ Mr. Ross
If he will study the Commons proceedings relating to the principal Act and the 1958 Act he will find that they were conducted by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In other words, they had every appearance of having something to do with health. But if he studies the earlier proceedings on this Bill he will find that the Financial Secretary admitted that this was a Treasury Bill. We suggest that if it is the Government should "come clean", and call it by its proper name—the Finance (No. 1) Bill, 1961. If anyone is muddling the country it is the Government, who claim that this Measure has respectable origins and is related to the National Health Service.
The moneys collected under the Bill are collected by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. They no longer go into the National Insurance Fund. That is where the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) got lost. His Parliamentary history is poor. The National Health Service contribution, as such, was a creation of hon. Members opposite in 1957. It goes to the Exchequer, along with all the other moneys which the Exchequer collects. This is just another way of raising money, and we object to this Measure being paraded before the country as something to do with the Health Service.
I had certain doubts about the Financial Secretary's explanation being in order when he was referring to the Northern Ireland aspect. Since he went into it, however, he might as well have gone the whole way. The 1920 Act, as amended by the 1946 Act and other Acts, relates not to two, but to three classes of person. He might have told us about the position of the Armed Forces. Why was there no reference to subsection (5), which is still applicable to Northern Ireland?
§ Mr. Gower
Admitting that the money is collected by the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, or the Treasury, cannot the hon. Member see any distinction between money collected for a specified purpose —[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] Yes—for a specified purpose—and money collected for general taxation, which could be used for schools, roads or anything else?
§ Mr. Ross
Does the hon. Member appreciate that this money is collected with and cannot be separated from National Insurance contributions? It goes into what is referred to as a combined contribution. After that, one lot goes into the National Insurance Fund and the other gets lost with the rest of the moneys going into the Exchequer.
§ Mr. Barber
I had not intended to take up an undue amount of time on this matter, because I had thought the Committee wished to get on to points relating to certain classes of individual. But I will do my best to deal with all the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked whether we could refer to the Measure by any other name. So far as I know he will incur no penalty if he refers to it by any name he pleases. That is made apparent from the opening words:This Act may he cited.…
§ Mr. Willis
I can see that the hon. Member is not very well versed in this controversy. We are often told by the Government that "may" must be construed as "shall" in certain contexts.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Barber
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that for the present purposes "may" means may.
May I turn now to the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton). He asked whether all the money raised under the provisions of the Bill would be used for the Health Service. He is quite right in assuming that.
§ Mr. W. Hamilton
And in Scotland, too? Will all the money raised in Scotland be devoted to the Scottish Health Service?
§ Mr. Barber
The Bill applies to Great Britain and has certain applications to Northern Ireland.
708 Coming back to the name of the Bill, and the point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) I can only say that, in the past, similar Bills dealing with the same subject matter as this have been entitled National Health Service Contributions Bills. I should have thought it was consistent—apart from any other reasons and the merits of the matter—that this Bill should also be called the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
§ Mr. Barber
I do not want it to be said that, because I am speaking a second time, I am taking up an undue amount of the time of the Committee. I know that some hon. Members wish to get on to other matters, but I would refer the Committee to the fact—whatever may be said about the scheme of things as a result of the National Insurance Act, 1946, when there was a health element referred to in that Act—that the Fourth Schedule of the Act has a heading:Contributions from National Insurance Fund to the National Health Service.I can see that hon. Members opposite may take the view that this Act should be entitled in some other way. They may take the view—although I gather, Sir Gordon, for reasons which you have given, that it would not be proper to go into details—that this should be referred to as a poll tax. It is a tenable proposal. But I must point out that if the Bill were to have its Title changed to include those words, it would be necessary, for obvious reasons, to change the names of earlier Acts: otherwise, the Statute Book would become chaotic.
I say, with respect, that while I appreciate the views of hon. Members opposite, surely what matters is the content of the Bill and its application to individuals and categories of people—matters which we are to discuss a little later. The name of the Bill is something about which we may differ, and about which there may be room for argument, but it seems to me, on grounds of consistency and accuracy, that it is right and proper that it should be called the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
§ Mr. Houghton
This is all very unsatisfactory, but there is nothing that we can do about it now, except to vote against the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Next week, on the occasion of the Third Reading, there will be another opportunity to go over these matters again. It will then be in order to discuss what is in the Bill, and the matters we are discussing this afternoon are in the Bill. I suggest that we should now come to a decision on the Question, because we have a long way to go, and limits have been placed on the time that we can spend on the Committee stage discussions.
§ Mr. Houghton
Although we objected very strongly to that being done, we have to take into account the fact that there is a limited amount of time, and we wish to deploy it to the best advantage, from our point of view, in
§ discussing other features of the Bill. I can only register dissatisfaction about the Title of the Bill in Clause 2.
§ There were no hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to assist us with the whirlwind explanation given by the Economic Secretary regarding the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman bravely plunged into the statutory details and complexities and came out with lucidity if not with comprehension. But if it is no insult to Northern Ireland that is all right by us. In the circumstances, I suggest that we now reach a decision on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
§ Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 199.713
|Division No. 87.]||AYES||[4.34 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)|
|Alfason, James||Dance, James||Harvie Anderson, Miss|
|Arbuthnot, John||d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry||Hastings, Stephen|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Barber, Anthony||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward|
|Barlow, Sir John||Doughty, Charles||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Barter, John||Duncan, Sir James||Hendry, Forbes|
|Batsford, Brian||Duthie, Sir William||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Hiley, Joseph|
|Bell, Ronald||Eden, John||Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)|
|Bidgood, John C.||Ellott, R.W.(Nwestle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Emery, Peter||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Bishop, F. P.||Errington, Sir Eric||Hobson, John|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Holland, Philip|
|Bossom, Clive||Farey-jones, F. W.||Hollingworth, John|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Farr, John||Hornby, R. P.|
|Box, Donald||Fell, Anthony||Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Finlay, Graeme||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fisher, Nigel||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John|
|Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SlrWalter||Foster, John||Hughes-Young, Michael|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & stone)||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Brooman-White, R.||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Freeth, Denzil||Jackson, John|
|Bryan, Paul||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||James, David|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Gammons, Lady||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Burden, F. A.||Gardner, Edward||Jennings, J. C.|
|Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Glover, Sir Douglas||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Godber, J. B.||Joseph, Sir Keith|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Goodhart, Philip||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Chataway, Christopher||Goodhew, Victor||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Gough, Frederick||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Gower, Raymond||Kimball, Marcus|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Grant, Rt. Hon. William||Lagden, Godfrey|
|Cole, Norman||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Green, Alan||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Gresham Cooke, R.||Leavey, J. A.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Cranston, Sir Robert||Leburn, Gilmour|
|Corfield, F. V.||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Costain, A. P.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Coulson, J M.||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Lindsay, Martin|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Hare, Rt. Hon. John||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Critchley, Julian||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Cunningham, Knox||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Stodart, J. A.|
|MacArthur, Ian||Peel, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|McLaren, Martin||Percival, Ian||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Maclean, SirFltzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Sumner, Donald (Orpington)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)||Pilkington, Sir Richard||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Pitman, I. J.||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)|
|McMaster, Stanley R.||Pitt, Miss Edith||Teeling, William|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Pott, Percival)||Temple, John M.|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Madden, Martin||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Prior, J. M. L.||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Marshall, Douglas||Profumo, Rt. Hon. John||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Marten, Nell||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)||Quannell, Miss J. M.||Turner, Colin|
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Ramaden, James||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Mawby, Ray||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Rees, Hugh||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Renton, David||Wall, Patrick|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Robertson, Sir David||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)||Robson Brown, Sir William||Watts, James|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Roots, William||Webster, David|
|Morgan, William||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Morrison, John||Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)||Whitelaw, William|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Russell, Ronald||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Nabarro, Gerald||Seymour, Leslie||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Heave, Airey||Sharples, Richard||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Shaw, M.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Shepherd, William||Wise, A. R.|
|Noble, Michael||Skeet, T. H. H.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Nugent, Sir Richard||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrle||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Orr, Capt. I. P. S.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Osborn, John (Hallam)||Speir, Rupert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Osborne, Cyril (Louth)||Stanley, Hon. Richard||Colonel J. H. Harrison and|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Stevens, Geoffrey||Mr. Gibson-Watt.|
|Abse, Leo||Driberg, Tom||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Albu, Austen||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Edeman, Maurice||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Awbery, Stan||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Edwards, Robert (Bllston)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Baird, John||Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Jones,Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)|
|Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Evans, Albert||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)|
|Benson, Sir George||Finch, Harold||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Blackburn, F.||Fletcher, Eric||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Blyton, William||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Boardman, H.||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Kelley, Richard|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Celts, B.W.)||Forman, J. C.||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Bowles, Frank||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||King, Dr. Horace|
|Boyden, James||Galpern, Slr Myer||Ledger, Ron|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||George, LadvMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Brockway, A, Fenner||Cinshurg, David||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C||Lipton, Marcus|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Gourlay, Harry||Loughlin, Charles|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Greenwood, Anthony||Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||McCann, John|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||MacColl, James|
|Chapman, Donald||Grimond, J.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Chetwynd George||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mackie, John|
|Cliffe, Michael||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||McLeavy, Frank|
|Collick, Percy||Hannan, William||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hayman, F. H.||Mailalieu, J.P.W,(Huddersfield,E.)|
|Cronin, John||Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regie)||Manuel, A. C.|
|Crosland, Anthony||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Mapp, Charles|
|Grossman, R. H. S.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Mason, Roy|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Holman, Percy||Millan, Bruce|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Holt, Arthur||Milne, Edward J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Houghton, Douglas||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Deer, George||Howell, Charles A.||Monslow, Walter|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hoy, James H.||Moody, A. S.|
|Delagy, Hugh||Hughes, Cledwyn (Angleeey)||Morris, John|
|Dem"s-v, J-mes||Hughes, Emrye (S. Ayrshire)||Moyle, Arthur|
|Diamond, Joe-n||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Mulley, Frederick|
|Dodds, Norman||Hunter, A. E.||Neal, Harold|
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Ross, William||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Royle, Charles (Salford, West)||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Oliver, G. H.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Oram, A. E.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Thornton, Ernest|
|Oswald, Thomas||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Timmons, John|
|Owen, Will||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Paget, R. T.||Small, William||Watkins, Tudor|
|Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Weitzman, David|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Sorensen, R. W.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Parker, John (Dagenham)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)||Spriggs, Leslie||Whitlock, William|
|Pavitt, Laurence||Steele, Thomas||Wigg, George|
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Peart, Frederick||Stonehouse, John||Willey, Frederick|
|Pentland, Norman||Stones, William||Williams, D, J. (Neath)|
|Popplewell, Ernest||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)|
|Probert, Arthur||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Proctor, W. T.||Strass, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Randall, Harry||Swain, Thomas||Woof, Robert|
|Rankin, John||Swingler, Stephen||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Redhead, E. C.||Sylvester, George||Zilliacus, K.|
|Reid, William||Symonds, J. B.|
|Rhodes, H.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and|
|Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)||Mr. Lawson.|