§ 6.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:and after consultation with the legislative council of the colony or colonies concerned".
§ The Chairman
I suggest that with this Amendment the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) may discuss the Amendment also in his name, to Clause 6, page 6, line 1, after "Council", to insert:and after consultation with the legislative councils of the colonies concerned".
§ Mr. Chapman
It would be convenient if we could discuss together the two Amendments in my name.
The purpose of Clause 2 is to give Her Majesty the power to continue in an interim organisation certain functions of the present Federal Government, pending a more permanent settlement of the constitutional situation in the present Federation. No one on this side of the Committee, and I do not think any hon. Member at all, will grumble at the Government for requesting in this Clause fairly wide powers in setting up this authority, to perform certain common services in the area for the time being. We are very ready to agree that the Government should have substantial powers and the ability to make decisions and carry them out quickly. On the other hand, we are concerned, after examining this Clause, and on thinking both of the situation in the West Indies and of other precedents, lest this interim organisation might well drag on for a very long time.
I understood the Colonial Secretary to state that he very much hoped that we might get a new constitution agreed 102 in July, with, perhaps, these powers being handed over to a new constitutional system in the West Indies in August. I doubt whether the process will be quite as quick as that. My own view is that the discussions may well last for the greater part of the remainder of 1962, during which time this new Commissioner or authority, or whatever he is called, will be carrying out these common services and carrying on various functions. Therefore, we do not begrudge the fairly wide powers, because we feel that they may be needed for some time.
But it is when we come to subsection (2, a) that we begin to be concerned. The subsection empowers the authority to make laws for the Colonies for whose benefit it is to perform functions. We thought that this was to be a somewhat temporary organisation, but if it is to reach the stage of actually making laws for the Colonies concerned, that is varying the federal system of common services—for it could carry on those without altering the laws of the Colonies—it is high time that we said that there should be clear consultation with the Colonies concerned. These, after all, are not directly ruled Colonies. Each has a legislative council of one kind or another and a system of representative Government of which the people are very proud.
It is, therefore, elementary to say that if this authority is to get to the point of continuing for some time and, by alteration and making laws, change the functions which it will carry out and the service which it will undertake on behalf of those Colonies, the least we can ask for is a clear assurance in the Bill that the legislative bodies in the Colonies will be consulted. This is what we do in the first Amendment.
The second Amendment, to Clause 6, is concerned with the time when we come to the further stage of the pending changes in the West Indies, when the British Government make up their mind about some new form of federation in the Caribbean and proceed to establish it by Order in Council. We seek to ensure that before such a vital decision is taken about the shape of the Federation, about what powers it shall have, about the whole pattern of its function and the system of representation inside 103 it, these vital things are done only after clear and really formal consultations with all the legislatures of the individual islands concerned.
If I may put it bluntly, there is no place like the West Indies for misunderstanding.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser) indicated assent.
§ Mr. Chapman
The hon. Gentleman nods. He knows what I mean. If, especially coming from the Mother Country, one is unclear in what one says, it is ten to one that it will be misunderstood in the West Indies. We already have a situation there where the powers given in Clause 5 are being misunderstood. It is said in the West Indies that those powers are being taken to diminish the element of representative government in the West Indies. Much as I dislike Her Majesty's Government, I do not believe that they have that intention.
It is absolutely imperative, therefore, to write into Clause 6 a provision that there should be clear, formal consultation before the future of these island peoples is decided in some new form of federation. It is very important that it should be an agreed form of federation and not one imposed in the way that we imposed the Central African Federation Constitution. All hon. Members know where that has led us. We do not want any more trouble like that, with a constitution opposed and lacking local support, because it was never agreed in consultation. It is imperative that in the West Indies the people concerned should have a stake in the new constitution by agreeing on the form of federation.
Many things are to be decided when Clause 6 is put into operation. There is the distribution of functions between the Federation and the constituent islands. There is the type of representative system to be applied. There is the impact which this will have on the present electoral and governmental systems of the individual islands.
It was mooted on Second Reading, for example, that the ministerial system in the individual islands should be reduced—a proposal which I favour wholeheartedly. I think that there should be 104 a maximum of two full-time Ministers for 50,000 or 100,000 populations in these small islands. Whatever the points may be, they are crucial to these people who love politics and love to argue and are intensely jealous abou their representative system.
It is rather loose drafting to leave the Bill all the way through without any written assurance about consultation with the peoples concerned. There are in the Bill wide, sweeping powers such as we have hardly given in recent years to Her Majesty's Government to decide the fate of 3½ million people. We give powers by Order in Council to make, remake and undo all sorts of things in the West Indies and at no point in the Bill is there a written assurance of consultations with the people concerned.
It is for these reasons that I move the Amendment and associate with it the second Amendment in my name. The people in the West Indies have the right to absolute cast-iron assurance on these two points.
§ Mr. H. Fraser
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has made two very good points, in the sense that the more explanation can be given to the people of the West Indies the better. I am, therefore, grateful to him for putting down these two Amendments.
The first Amendment is to Clause 2. Here we do not propose to take any powers except those powers which are set out and which are for the benefit of the people who will be concerned in the continuation of common services. The sort of powers which we would use here would be powers to deal with the terms of service for civil servants, pension provisions and other matters of that sort. It would be inappropriate to refer that type of action by the commissioner to the legislative councils of the various islands affected. We all understand the great need for speed in setting up this organisation. If we have to consult the legislative councils of the various islands on matters of this kind there might be interminable delays and the whole organisation might be held up.
The matters which would be affected by the Amendments are matters for negotiation with the Governments concerned rather than with the legislative assemblies. As perhaps is well known, 105 we are discussing with the Governments concerned and their representatives on a working party—whose work is almost completed—the details of the interim organisation which it is proposed to establish.
I can give the Committee an assurance that under Clause 2 (2) the only type of laws that the commissioner would have to enact would be those dealing with pensions and so on for civil servants and possibly imposing income tax on them, but this would have no general effect on the islands. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. Chapman
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the first Amendment, whatever he may have said just now is not set out in the text of Clause 2. The Clause does not say that the power to make laws shall be restricted to matters concerning the pensions and pay of civil servants. The Clause relates to the whole question of the carrying on of functions of the Federal Government.
§ Mr. Fraser
I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that what I have said is the case. I think that the subsection may be read in that way. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that Clause 2 (1) gives a general impression to that effect. Certainly I can assure him that that is all the Clause is concerned with.
§ Mr. Fraser
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2 and then I can move on to his Amendment to Clause 6.
§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
If the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot go on this point as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) would like because reference to legislative councils would mean delay which would make it impracticable to have an interim organisation like this, could he not go a little further than he has done in the verbal assurance that he has given?
106 My hon. Friend is right. The text of the Bill means that this authority can impose laws on any of the Colonies over any field. We welcome and accept the assurances which have been given, but they have been made at the Dispatch Box and would have no validity in a court of law if the authority decided to do something with which one of the territories profoundly disagreed.
I return to the proposal made on Second Reading that with the interim authority there ought to be an advisory council set up which could be consulted about any action in the fields the Minister has suggested which affect the laws of a single territory. The hon. Gentleman told us that a working party is at work. Perhaps it could be constituted into an advisory council until the authority is finally agreed upon as a result of the negotiations which are to begin in July.
We feel that we ought to have firmer assurances than the hon. Gentleman has been able to give us.
§ Mr. Fraser
I can give an assurance that there will be consultation on these matters with the Governments concerned, but I cannot, as I said during the Second Reading debate, give an assurance on the other matter. It may be that we shall be able to wind up the organisation within three months, as we contemplate, and then we shall be able to hand it over to a wider and more permanent organisation which will be representative. Until it is quite clear that we cannot do this we prefer to keep it to a formal council. But we shall, of course, consult the Governments throughout. If we fail to get the organisation in its present form wound up and set up on a permanent basis, we shall after a few months consider the introduction of an Order in Council to set up the necessary representative body. We believe at this stage that if things go smoothly it will be unnecessary to make such provision.
§ Mr. Chapman
I am in considerable difficulty, Sir Robert. I do not want us to proceed to a decision on my first Amendment until we have had a reply to my second Amendment, because a reply to my second Amendment would be impossible if a decision were taken on my first Amendment. Might I, through you, request the hon. Gentleman now to reply to my second Amendment?
As I said at the outset, we are discussing with the Amendment to Clause 2 the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to Clause 6, and that second Amendment will not subsequently be called. Therefore, it should be dealt with now.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Fraser
I apologise, Sir Robert, for having misunderstood.
Clause 6 deals with the setting up of a new organisation, such as a new federation inside the eight or elsewhere. If that were to be done, it would have to come before the House for decision by affirmative Resolution. Therefore, it could be debated. It might be a question of two islands being politically joined together, or six, or eight, or three, and the setting up of a new constitution. As this could be debated in the House, there would immediately be a safeguard for the House and for the people in the West Indies.
Also, it would be tying too much the hands of the local Government and of Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations if it were necessary immediately on the setting up of a new organisation to appeal to the electorate of the various islands concerned. I believe that it would give too little room for manœuvre for the West Indian leaders if before coming to agreement with Her Majesty's Government on a matter concerned with the setting up of a new organisation they had to gain the support of their own electorate. Frequently it is a matter of policy for a leading politician to decide on a course, and then, after the course has been shown to be successful, turn to his electors and ask them to approve what he has done.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be that there would have to be immediate reference to the legislative assemblies of the various islands, but surely it is a matter which must be left to the Premiers or other Ministers of the islands rather than laid down at Westminster.
§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)
The views of the Under-Secretary on the last point are very difficult for the Committee to accept. In the first place, there is no suggestion in the Amendment that the electorate should be consulted. All that is required is that the legislative councils 108 should be consulted. The legislative councils may well be in session; if not, they can be called to consider a question which if it is about the future of the federal system is of absolutely major importance.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the experience that we have already had with this Federation which is being brought to an end and buried in the Bill is the best possible argument against the position which he has just put to us. Surely what went wrong with the existing Federation was that it was put into operation without adequate consultation with the peoples concerned, and we do not want a repetition of that. To the extent that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) would oblige the heads of unit Governments to consult their legislative councils before coming to a decision, it would help to protect us against the danger which finally brought the original Federation to an end.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I find myself in some difficulty, because we are considering two Amendments in one debate. Having heard what has been said so far, my inclination would be to feel a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister with regard to the first Amendment, but I am totally dissatisfied with his explanation about Clause 6. Therefore, I am in the difficulty that if, as I gather your Ruling to be, Sir Robert, you are allowing us to discuss also the Amendment to Clause 6 but are not putting it to the vote, I should, in order to register my protest about Clause 6, have to support the Amendment to Clause 2.
§ Mr. Chapman
On a point of order, Sir Robert. I understand that both Amendments are being discussed but that the Amendment to Clause 6 has not been selected.
The usual practice is to have discussion on one Amendment, which is the only one selected. But if hon. Gentlemen are in difficulty here I am quite prepared, when we come to Clause 6, to call the hon. Member for Northfield's Amendment for a Division. That is not usually done, but I shall do it on this occasion. I appreciate the difficulties, and I will 109 take this course on the distinct understanding that the Amendment to Clause 6, when reached, is put straight away without further discussion.
§ Mr. Healey
On that assurance, Sir Robert, I recommend my hon. Friend, if he feels it possible, to withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2 on the assurance that his right hon. and hon. Friends will vote with him on the Amendment to Clause 6.
§ Mr. Fletcher
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield will not withdraw the Amendment to Clause 2 until the Committee has exhausted all the opportunity it desires of discussing with that Amendment the Amendment to Clause 6. I understand from your Ruling, Sir Robert, that when you come to Clause 6 you will enable us to divide on the Amendment but will not permit further debate. I gather, therefore, that we must utilise debate on the Amendment to Clause 2 in order to voice dissatisfaction with Clause 6, and must do so before my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield withdraws the Amendment to Clause 2, if he is so minded.
My Ruling applied to the Amendment to Clause 6, of course, not to the Clause itself.
§ Mr. Fletcher
I gather that we must discuss the Amendment to Clause 6 before my hon. Friend is tempted, if he is so tempted, to withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2.
I think I understand what the Under-Secretary of State is saying about the Amendment to Clause 2. He has given an assurance that the powers sought from this Committee under Clause 2 are intended to be purely temporary and transient, and he hopes that the negotiations on which he is now engaged will enable him, as a purely interim measure, to make some arrangements for some authority to be charged with providing the common services for the various territories which it was hoped would have been linked in the Federation.
The hon. Gentleman has assured us that these arrangements are purely temporary, but if, unfortunately, they drag on for an undue length of time he will come back here with alternative proposals. On that basis, I would not dis- 110 sent if my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield decided to withdraw the Amendment to Clause 2. But then the Under-Secretary of State said, in dealing with Clause 6, that the House would have an opportunity of discussing any Order in Council made under Clause 6.
If I understand Clause 7 correctly, any Statutory Instrument containing an Order in Council under this Bill is to be laid before the House, and, therefore, the House will have an opportunity if it wishes of considering not only an Order in Council under Clause 2 but also an Order in Council under Clause 6, the only difference being that one is subject to affirmative Resolution and the other to negative Resolution. In view of what the Under-Secretary of State has said, it is desirable to get clearly on record that the House will have ample opportunity of discussing, if it wishes, any Order in Council made under Clause 2.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has mentioned this right of the House as being in Clause 7. That is not so. Unless the Order in Council is altering an Act, it is not subject to the annulment procedure, and cannot very well be laid before the House. It may be that such Orders would only come to the House after being made.
§ Mr. Fletcher
If the hon. Member is correct in his interpretation of Clause 7, I am sure that the Committee will wish to have something to say about that Clause when we come to it. It would be out of order, however, to discuss now the merits of Clause 7. We shall want to look at it closely when we reach it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has pointed out, it is of vital importance that when the Government come to make proposals for a new federation of any of the territories the legislative councils of the Colonies concerned should be consulted. The objectives advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for trying to by-pass consultation with the legislative councils in regard to temporary arrangements for authority cannot possibly apply to the argument for consultation with those councils about permanent federation.
Obviously, it is only common sense that, before any definite proposal is put 111 before the House for any future federation, there should be a statutory obligation to consult the legislative councils of the Colonies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield might have gone a little further and used the words "with the agreement" in the Amendments instead of "and after consultation". He has not gone so far, but it would have been reasonable for him to do so.
No new proposals for any new or limited form of federation should be laid unless the House knows in advance that they are approved by the legislative councils concerned. My hon. Friend has contented himself with asking for consultation. If there is consultation, we shall have plenty of opportunity of knowing whether the legislative councils agree or not with the proposals put forward.
Though perhaps the Amendments do not go as far as I would have wished, I accept their form because it is the very minimum that the Committee is entitled to demand, the very minimum in justice to the Colonies concerned and in the interests of a sensible and reasonable federation that we are entitled to expect. I hope that if on Clause 6, the Under-Secretary of State does not as a result of this further discussion accept the Amendment, my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
§ Mr. Chapman
I tender my thanks to the Chair for so kindly agreeing on this occasion that, if we withdraw the first Amendment, we may later vote on the Amendment to Clause 6 without further discussion. That is a very helpful thing and I am most grateful.
I was astonished by what the Under-Secretary of State said about Clause 6. He did not even pledge himself to much consultation. I believe that the Government believe in consultation to try to get a new federation on firm ground, but he did not even pledge himself to very much. This was the occasion, if he wanted to carry the Committee with him, when he should have gone to the utmost lengths by saying "Of course, this new federation will only be set up after the fullest possible consultation with every Minister who cares to come along and with everybody else who cares to submit his views." This was the 112 occasion for the utmost in assurances if he wanted the good will of the Committee.
§ Mr. H. Fraser
I thought that I would be able to make those assurances in the debate on the Clause as a whole.
§ Mr. Chapman
But we are not debating that now. We are now discussing whether or not we should press on an unwilling Minister the Amendment to Clause 2. Judging by his speech, the hon. Gentleman appears to be unwilling.
I considered making the Amendment specify that there should be the agreement of the legislative councils as opposed to their merely being consulted, but I came down against that for the reason that, in view of the shifting sands and varying pressures of West Indian politics, it would be open for the legislative council in one island to hold out to the last ditch in order to get one point in the new Federation according to its own wishes. It would have been disastrous to have required unanimity among the legislative councils before any new Federation could be established.
Returning to the general problem of consultation, let us take the example of the Island of St. Vincent, whose Premier is Mr. Joshua. He has recently been in trouble with his electors and his legislative assembly and with everybody else. There has been chaos in St. Vincent in recent months. Is it right that the federation of the little Eight, if it comes to that in the end, should be founded on agreement just with Mr. Joshua, when, behind Mr. Joshua, there is a legislative council composed of people who are jostling him and who disagree with him and among whom he cannot always command a majority, especially when there are independent members who may have something constructive to suggest about the form of a new federation, its powers and its duties?
It is monstrous to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that only Premiers are to be consulted, and not even to make much of an offer about that consultation. It is very short-sighted, because it will only land us in something which we all want to avoid—that local opinion will not feel that it has a stake in any new federation which may be formed. What we want is a federation formed 113 on enthusiasm, consent and participation by the people in the individual islands, and my Amendment to Clause 6 would have established exactly that. I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted it, and in due course I hope to press the matter to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Healey
I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out paragraph (d).
The purpose of the Amendment is not to make it impossible for the proposed interim authority to operate—far from it. It is simply to ensure that it will be an authority with a very short life and that if there is any danger of its continuing its life beyond the two or three months of which the Minister has spoken the Government should propose a new authority differently constituted.
As Sir Grantley Adams, the Federal Prime Minister, has pointed out, Her Majesty's Government's proposal, in paragraph (e), to give themselves the power to take money from the individual colonial Governments to contribute towards the costs of running the interim authority violates the basic democratic principle of no taxation without representation. On our side of the Committee we would have preferred the unit Governments in some way to be associated with the interim authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has already suggested that there should be some form of advisory council.
My noble Friends in another place moved an Amendment to provide that the individual unit Governments should be directly represented on the authority in some way. I would not go so far, provided that one could feel absolutely certain that this would be an authority with a very short life and provided that it was fully understood, both here and in the West Indies, that the authority would be replaced by a far more democratic authority if it were discovered necessary to continue its life beyond the two or three months envisaged.
I should like to press the Minister to consider whether he should not accept the Amendment. The Government are giving themselves power, in paragraph (c), to take over any moneys which 114 belong to the Federation as such in order to cover the costs of this short-lived interim authority, and they should be perfectly adequate to cover a period of duration such as the Government themselves are suggesting. Incidentally, I hope that in commenting on the Amendment the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us yet whether the Government have any idea what the moneys surviving from the Federation will be and what will be available to Her Majesty's Government.
The best possible way of assuring the peoples and Governments in the West Indies themselves that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of continuing the life of this undemocratic authority beyond the two or three months necessary to organise a formal conference of all the Governments concerned to set up a long-term authority will be for Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. If there ever arises a situation in which it is necessary for this authority to draw on the resources of the unit Governments, the unit Governments themselves, by that very fact, will then be endowed with a statutory position in the working of the authority itself. I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment for that reason.
§ Mr. H. Fraser
The same sort of argument is applied here as was applied to the previous Amendment. This is the chief and obvious source of revenue over the period during which the new organisation will be set up before Jamaica goes independent on 6th August. That is the date which we have to consider and it is therefore a period of three or four months, perhaps four at the outside.
I want to be precise about the Government's intention. We shall be negotiating with the unit Governments concerned the actual sums of money which they are to contribute to this interim organisation. It is merely a matter of our having the authority, which the Clause will give us, to conclude the negotiations and to authorise the contributions being made by them. We are in the middle of negotiations at the moment about collecting sufficient funds from them for keeping the interim organisation in being. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment for precisely the reasons which I gave before, but I assure the Committee 115 that not only will there be full consultation, but that there is indeed full consultation at the moment through a working party which includes representatives of the various islands concerned.
§ Mr. Healey
Can the Under-Secretary answer my first question about the moneys available to the Government under paragraph (c) which are appertaining to the Federal Government, so that we can have some idea of whether they are likely to cover the cost of running the interim authority within the next four months? Secondly, can he give us some idea of the sort of size of contribution which, under paragraph (d), he will require from the unit Governments? What is the per capita contribution which he is requesting?
§ Mr. Fraser
The capital sum under paragraph (c) is mainly to be used for the compensation of civil servants under Clause 3. This is a matter of millions—but not very many millions—of British West Indian dollars. What we are concerned with here is the running of the organisation—matters like the agricultural services and the meteorological services—for a period of months. We are planning ahead to have the money available to run the services up to September. I should say that the sum involved is probably rather less than £500,000 for the actual running of the services. The contributions will come mainly from the large islands and also,
§ of course, from the smaller islands on a pro rata basis. In the depth of negotiations it is impossible to estimate what the contribution per head or per island will be.
§ Mr. Healey
I am sorry to keep pressing the Minister, but this is an incredibly sloppy Bill. Paragraph (c) gives power tovest in such an authority such of the assets and liabilities as may be specified in the Order of the government of the Federation or of any body which, for the purpose of performing functions on behalf of, or in accordance with directions given by, that government, is established by a law made by the legislature of the Federation;".In fact, it applies to Clause 3, which is concerned with something completely different, in which the authority as such is not mentioned.
This is an appallingly badly drafted Bill, which has already given rise to great suspicion and misunderstanding—I hope it is misunderstanding—in the West Indies. If the Minister is able, in Committee, to give us assurances about consultation, why should he refuse to take any obligation to consult and to include in the Bill the assurances that he has given to the Committee? I strongly recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to carry this Amendment to the Division Lobby.
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 111.117
|Division No. 139.]||AYES||[7.42 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Coulson, Michael||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Allason, James||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Critchley, Julian||Hocking, Philip N.|
|Barber, Anthony||Dance, James||Holland, Philip|
|Barlow, Sir John||Digby, Simon Wingfleld||Hopkins, Alan|
|Batsford, Brian||Doughty, Charles||Hornby, R. P.|
|Bell, Ronald||Drayson, G. B.||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Berkeley, Humphry||du Cann, Edward||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Biffen, John||Eden, John||Jackson, John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||James, David|
|Bossom, Clive||Fell, Anthony||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Finlay, Graeme||Jennings, J. C.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.||Fisher, Nigel||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Braine, Bernard||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Foster, John||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Bullard, Denys||Freeth, Denzil||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Kitson, Timothy|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Gilmour, Sir John||Leburn, Gilmour|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Gower, Raymond||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.||Lindsay, Sir Martin|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Green, Alan||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Gresham Cooke, R.||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Collard, Richard||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Gurden, Harold||McAdden, Stephen|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||McLaren, Martin|
|Costain, A. P.||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||McMaster, Stanley R.|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Sids)|
|Maddan, Martin||Prior, J. M. L.||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Rawlinson, Peter||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Mills, Stratton||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Miscampbell, N.||Renton, David||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Morgan, William||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)||Walder, David|
|Nabarro, Gerald||Roots, William||Walker, Peter|
|Neave, Airey||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Scott-Hopkins, James||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Seymour, Leslie||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Page, Graham (Crosby)||Shaw, M.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Skeet, T. H. H.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Woollam, John|
|Peel, John||Smithers, Peter||Worsley, Marcus|
|Pike, Miss Mervyn||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Pilkington, Sir Richard||Stodart, J. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Pitman, Sir James||Storey, Sir Samuel||Mr. Noble and|
|Pitt, Miss Edith||Studholme, Sir Henry||Mr. Gordon Campbell|
|Pott, Percivall||Tapsell, Peter|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Harper, J.||Pentland, Norman|
|Beaney, Alan||Hayman, F. H.||Prentice, R. E.|
|Blackburn, F.||Healey, Denis||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bottomley, A.||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, SW.)||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Randall, Harry|
|Bowles, Frank||Hilton, A. V.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Boyden, James||Holman, Percy||Reid, William|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Holt, Arthur||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Ross, William|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Short, Edward|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Janner, Sir Barnett||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Callaghan, James||Kelley, Richard||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Chapman, Donald||Lawson, George||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Ledger, Ron||Small, William|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Snow, Julian|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Loughlin, Charles||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||MacColl, James||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Darling, George||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Deer, George||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Delargy, Hugh||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Dempsey, James||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Diamond, John||Manuel, Archie||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Dodds, Norman||Mapp, Charles||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Mason, Roy||Wade, Donald|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Mellish, R. J.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Mendelson, J. J.||Weitzman, David|
|Evans, Albert||Millan, Bruce||Whitlock, William|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mitchison, G. R.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Monslow, Walter||Willey, Frederick|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Moyle, Arthur||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Mulley, Frederick||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Oliver, G. H.||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Oswald, Thomas|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Owen, Will||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Mr. Charles A. Howell and|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pavitt, Laurence||Mr. Grey.|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Peart, Frederick|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.