§ 4.56 p.m.
§ The Chairman
In calling the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 1, line 21, to add a new subsection (3), I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with it the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, to add a new subsection (4).
§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:(3) Any person retained under this section shall be deemed to be a member of the Territorial Army for the purposes of section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, and by an order made under the said section eleven on release from full-time service shall receive a sum equal to the excess over his actual pay of what he would have received during the period of his retained service as a soldier serving an engagement of six years or an officer holding a regular commission (as the case may be).On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for War was kind enough to give the House information about the rates of pay that the men who are either held under Clause 1 or recalled under Clause 2 will receive. If I may quote the words used by the right hon. Gentleman then, he said:If a volunteer was called up, he would receive the appropriate Regular rates of pay and allowances that I have already described."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 53.]We noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in making this announcement about the appropriate Regular rates of pay, did not say anything about officers, and I believe that the assumption has gone out that an officer will receive rates of pay under Appendix 2, or perhaps Part II of Appendix 1, as shown in the Army Estimates, page 212. At that point, the rates of pay are divided up as between a National Service officer's rates of pay during the first eighteen months of whole-time service, and the second part of the rates of pay, which is headed "After eighteen months of whole-time service."
The purpose of my Amendment concerning officers is to ensure that an officer shall be treated as a Regular or short-service officer. It may well be that it always has been the intention of the Secretary of State that officers who are held under Clause 1 or who are recalled under Clause 2 shall receive the rates of pay in that category, and not in the second part of the category applicable to National Service officers. If that is so, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will think that I have done him a good turn in giving him an opportunity to make his purpose plain, and it will also cheer up the National Service officers who are to be held, so that the right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty about accepting that part of my Amendment.
654 When we come to the other ranks, we are in some difficulty, because what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the pay increases would be at the appropriate Regular rates, and I quote from what he said on Second Reading:From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements—".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 49.]In announcing that, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was going to be generous, but during the Committee stage he was brought face to face with the consequences of his policy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I am sure that this was in his mind, and that he thought he was being generous, but let us look at the facts. The rates of pay these men are to get are the rates of pay in category A of the Schedule contained in the Estimates, and they are related to men who are serving on a three-year engagement.
I was never an admirer of that engagement, to put it mildly, and I regard myself as one of the minor prophets in having foreseen what the consequences would be. Seven years after it happened, the Government came to my point of view in the middle of 1957 and withdrew the short-service engagement as the basic engagement for the Army as a whole, but retained it for certain categories. They retained it for the Brigade of Guards and the Household Brigade. It was retained for certain categories in the Army Catering Corps and the Intelligence Corps. The Government made clear that they would limit the number of men who could join on the short-service engagement. I would not say that they did it because I asked them. At least, the point was reached, as in all defence matters, when they were forced to face the logic of their own policies. The country is still paying the price.
The overwhelming majority of the men who will be either recalled or held will not be serving in the Brigade of Guards. I should not be surprised if the Brigade of Guards is so popular that it gets all the Regular recruits that its wants so easily that it will not need to have anyone back. They may be wanted in the 655 infantry and, perhaps to a lesser degree in the Royal Armoured Corps, but certainly they will be wanted in the R.A.M.C., the R.A.S.C. and the R.A.O.C. In these units, normal engagement will be six years
The test of the generosity of the War Office is not the kindly heart of the Secretary of State for War, but the pay packet as it is received on Fridays. What will be the effect on a man who is either held or recalled to find that all those around him get a bigger pay packet? A man may have enlisted on a Regular engagement, but his twin brother who is either held or recalled will find that all he gets is a little bit extra. Such a man could not switch to a short-service engagement, for the minimum engagement will be six years. In other words, the rates of pay which the Secretary of State asks or will compel these men to accept are rates which are not applicable to the arm of the Service to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be recalled.
In the past, there have been the queerest anomalies about Army pay. I remember—I was serving at the time—when a clean break was made after the First World War and for a few months everything was straight. One had either a tradesman's or a non-tradesman's rate of pay. Then, in 1920, an Army order was issued about proficiency pay. We all knew where we were. It was not long, however, before exceptions were made about such things as reserve rights and qualifications. Nothing did more to cause and bad feeling in a unit than when men were doing the same job but one of them got one rate of pay, another got another rate of pay and nobody understood what the entitlement was.
§ Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby)
Except the colour sergeant.
§ Mr. Wigg
And not always the colour sergeant. He may have done some explaining, but he did not always know. What should have been something quite simple became extremely complicated. Here, we are at it again.
Those who are as old as myself or a little older will remember that nothing caused more in the Army in the First World War than the exigencies of 656 the Service which compelled the War Office, because of its lack of forethought, to give an R.A.S.C. driver 5s. or 6s. a day to take the ammunition up to the line, whereas the man who did the firing and took the can back got 1s. a day. In the last war, the major discontent was that the further away a man was from operations, the more pay he got.
The star system was to the credit of the Labour Government, although I can only think that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and his colleagues did not know what they were doing, for I do not know why the system was abandoned without protest from our own benches. Today, the fighting soldier is a mechanic who handles complicated equipment costing a great deal of money. That fact was recognised in the star system and the ordinary fighting soldier was given pay for the techniques which he had to acquire and use. That seems to me to be fair.
Again, the Secretary of State for War has lost another fight with the Army's ancient and permanent enemy, the Treasury, which has abandoned the policy of buttering the paws of the troops. As one would expect, the Treasury is generous only when it must be; and when it can be mean, it is. The decision of the Secretary of State as reported in column 49 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th November, which appears to be a generous policy, was certainly not thought out, if that announcement is correct, in relation to officers. In the case of other ranks, it is less than fair because it does not face the facts of the situation.
My Amendment is a simple one. It would put right the wrong concerning the officer. Therefore, the Secretary of State should accept that the case for the Amendment is overwhelming. In the case of the other ranks, I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the Amendment and will consider the debate on my previous Amendment concerning the bounty, when, with only one exception, hon. Members on both sides who spoke supported my Amendment. I believe that the same thing will happen today. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will enable us to make up some of the time we have lost by accepting 657 my Amendments, both on Clause 1 and and Clause 2, without further discussion.
§ Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)
I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) feels when speaking to a Committee packed to full capacity with standing room only. What is it that drives hon. Members away when we are discussing Army matters? These are matters of considerable importance, particularly when we are discussing the situation of the National Service men who either are to be retained for an additional six months or, having left the Service, are to be brought back into it for an additional six months, and, in particular, when we are now discussing an Amendment concerning the emoluments of the men in question, for whom it is an important and vital consideration. However, there it is and we have to make the best of it.
I am not very much concerned with the technicalities of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley argues learnedly on matters of this sort. I am concerned with the practical application of the matters that we have had under review in Committee in relation to remuneration. Before we dispose of the Amendment, I should like the Secretary of State for War to tell the Committee the exact rates of pay which the two categories of National Service men are to receive.
First, we have the category of men who are retained for an additional six months. The Secretary of State and I had some controversy on this subject during the earlier Committee stage. I gather from what he wrote to me and from what subsequently was said in Committee that the National Service men of a certain grade and after a certain period of service would receive the same remuneration as privates second grade who had enlisted in the Regular Forces for a period of six years. That is how I understood it. Boiled down to practical considerations, that would mean that National Service men in this category who are to be retained for six months will receive 16s. a day. I should like to be reassured about that.
Now, I come to the second category, the men who after two years with the Colours as National Service men, then leave, either to resume their civil avocations or to embark on a career of what- 658 ever kind it may be, and are then drawn back into the Service because of this alleged crisis or emergency and have to serve another six months. I want to know What they are to receive.
It has been pointed out over and over again, on Second Reading and in Committee, that nobody doubts the unfairness and possible injustice which are likely to emerge as a result of the provisions of the Bill. Men who have served two years will discover all of a sudden that they have to stay for another six months, when they were hoping to leave the Service and embark on a career, engage in a trade, or resume an apprenticeship. There will be men also, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has remarked, who will have left the Service after two years and embarked on a career. Perhaps they will have entered the medical profession or will be about to enter a practice in that or some other profession. Perhaps they will have just terminated their apprenticeship, have become craftsmen or have engaged in small business operations. These men are now to be forcibly taken away from their civil occupations and brought back into the Service.
There may be a case for this. I have never been happy about it and perhaps we can discuss it on Third Reading later today. The Secretary of State for War knows his own business best, and those who have served in Service Departments know that extraordinary difficulties arise the details of which cannot always be conveyed to people outside the Department. I accept that, but if men are to be treated in this fashion, which will seem unjust and unfair to them and to their friends and relatives and to the public generally, then for heaven's sake let us treat them reasonably in the matter of pay.
The right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of a bounty for these men. It is to be paid to the "Ever-readies", the men who volunteer through the Territorial Army for Regular service. I take no exception to that and I have said so previously in Committee. I do not dislike the idea of the "Ever-readies". It is the best part of the Bill, but if a bounty is to be applied to the "Ever-readies" surely some additional remuneration should be paid to the ex-National 659 Service men and the men who are to be retained for another six months so as to bring them up to the level of the Regulars. They should be paid, if not the "Ever-readies" bounty, then at any rate something approximating to it. This is the purpose of the Amendment, which I think is very reasonable.
I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance of my impression, and it is no more than that, that the intention was to see that the National Service men who with 16 months' to 18 months' service receive about 11s. a day will go up to 16s. a day as a minimum, because they have entered the grade which is approximate to the Regular grade where men have enlisted for six years. If there is injustice and unfairness, and if there is apprehension in the minds of the men concerned and of their friends and relatives and of hon. Members, we can at least say to these men, "If you are being extracted forcibly from your civil occupation you will lose a great deal both as regards your career and your remuneration, but at any rate the Army will treat you reasonably." That is what I would do if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place and I hope that he will do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned what was done when we had a Labour Government and we had the star system. He was a little mischievous when he said that the reason why we adopted that scheme was that we did not know what we were doing. Very well, but we raised pay, pensions and gratuities beyond the expectations of the men in the Army.
§ Mr. Wigg
I congratulated the Labour Government. I supported them, over and over again, but the difficulty was that I was the only one to take the trouble to find out what they were doing. All I said was that I could not understand why, having been introduced, the star system has been done away with without protest.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
That is better. As long as my hon. Friend discharges adequately his duty of criticising the present Government as well as occasionally expressing his displeasure with the Labour 660 Government, I do not mind. However, our co-operation was effective, and I am sure quite adequate. It has been maintained over a period of years, to the surprise of many people who cannot understand how co-operation of this kind can stand up to the ravages of time and the criticism to which it is subjected in certain quarters.
At any rate, that is what we did. Our purpose at the time can be expressed in a phrase which I then used. When I left the Ministry of Fuel and Power I said, "I want to treat the soldiers as well as the miners should be treated." In other words, I wanted to see the men in the Services, whether National Service men or Regulars, including the officers, treated as well as men in similar capacities in civil life. I hope that that is what the right hon. Gentleman would do and that if he cannot accept the Amendment he will give an assurance that the men will be treated as well as they expect and we hope.
§ Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)
I follow the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that I also should have thought that the Committee would have been better attended. I have had a great number of letters from young people in this category who have been or are to be doctors or members of some other profession. It is astonishing when one thinks of their predicament. They may be about to take up a scholarship to some university abroad. They may want to attend a course in America, or they may have an appointment in one of the London hospitals, and they are to be recalled. Some of them in this class of recall do not know whether they will be recalled. It seems to be altogether a most unfortunate position for many of them.
If we are to treat these specialist people like this then frankly, judging from what I have been told by constituents, both officers in the R.A.M.C. and other ranks, the Committee should accept the Amendment and make absolutely certain that those who are called under this pernicious form of selection shall be treated during the time in which they have to serve the country as if they were part of the Regular Forces of the Crown. I therefore support the Amendment in relation to those officers and other ranks. The country has put these 661 young men into a very difficult predicament, and we must therefore pay them an adequate reward for their service.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden)
I am sure that the Committee will agree with me when I say that I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) back with us and in good voice. We missed him during our last discussions and I thought that even the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was not absolutely his own brilliant self without the stimulus of his hon. Friend. We are glad to have heard them both in action again today. Something was said about there not being a great number of hon. Members present. In a sense that may be understandable, because, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dudley, we had a fairly exhaustive discussion of this subject at the conclusion of the Committee stage. But that is not to say that the hon. Gentleman has not done the Committee a service in moving his Amendment and giving the Government another opportunity of trying to explain exactly how this matter stands.
The hon. Gentleman began by asking me a question about the rates of pay of officers, and I think that I could well begin by giving him the assurance that he seeks. The pay of officers is differently based from the pay of other ranks, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it depends in all cases on rank and length of service. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found at page 208 of the Army Estimates where he will see the rates of pay and allowances of Regular officers and short-service officers, and those are the rates which will be applicable to National Service officers under my right hon. Friend's proposals.
During the debate in Committee, there was a certain amount of discussion between the right hon. Member for Easington, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about comparisons between rates of pay, and I shall endeavour later in my remarks to answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked and try to clear up the matter once for all. But I do not want to go too deeply and become too involved in giving specific figures about specific rates because they are difficult to understand across the Floor of the 662 Committee. I have the details with me and I shall, in order to elucidate the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, refer to the Army Estimates where the information is all set out, but I do not believe that the principle raised by the hon. Member for Dudley turns on these details. I think it is a matter of principle which I can discuss and explain better, leaving the details apart.
The question, as I see it, is simply this. In his speech on Second Reading my right hon. Friend announced that retained and recalled National Service men would get the rate of Regular pay applicable to men serving on a three-year Regular engagement. He went on to explain that this increase of pay for those affected was intended as some measure of compensation for what they are being told they must undertake.
The hon. Member for Dudley today has, I think, sought to imply that this increase is not enough and that we are not being sufficiently generous. All I can say is that if he will refresh his memory—he may not even need to refresh it—and consider, for example, what was proposed in 1950 when hon. Members opposite were in our position and when National Service men who were retained were brought up to the Regular rate at the beginning of the Korean War, and compare that with what my right hon. Friend is now proposing, noting the respective increases that were made then and are being proposed now, I do not think that the figures will entitle him to press any charge of a lack of generosity upon my right hon. Friend's proposals. I think the comparison stands up extremely well.
The right hon. Member for Easington asked me about some details on which he had had correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The comparisons that were given to him by my right hon. Friend were selected comparisons picked out from among the various grades and trades in the Army, as mentioned in the Estimates, but the comparisons were made between Regulars in those various grades and trades, and National Service men in comparable grades and trades. The best way to clear this up is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 220 of the Army Estimates where he will find the rates of pay of National Service men. 663 He should compare the details that he finds there with the same classifications which he will find on pages 216 and 218, and he will see there set out the answer to his question. Comparable grades and trades among National Service men will go on to the rate as laid down for Regulars, but it will be in accordance with my right hon. Friend's original proposal, the rate for three-year men. I will go on to explain that in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley.
I always study with great care the speeches of the right hon. Member for Easington and I was struck by something that he said in Committee on 31st January of this year. He said that the disparity between the pay of the National Service men and the Regularshas been operating ever since the beginning of the National Service Act. I had something to do with it. We provided a differentiation in pay. It was done for this purpose, in order to persuade the National Service men to join up for a longer period in the Regular Force, and it succeeded to a considerable extent"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1162.]The right hon. Gentleman's ideas have stood the test of time, and this principle of a higher rate of pay for an obligation to do a longer term of service was, as I think he knows, taken up in 1956 when a new pay code was introduced which improved all Regular rates of pay. As a result of that, men on engagements of less than six years get one rate of Regular pay, those doing six years and more but less than nine get another rate, and those doing nine or more get a higher rate still, and so on.
The hon. Member for Dudley rather dismissed this principle of a higher rate for a longer term of service——
§ Mr. Wigg indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Ramsden
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he rather played down the question of a higher rate for a committal to a longer term of service. He said there would be discrepancies as between what one man in a corps was paid and the pay of an other man in the same corps. Of course, that happens all the time. We have in a corps, side by side with each other, doing the same job of work, a man who is committed to the six-year term and a man who is committed to the nine year term, and they will be on different 664 rates of pay. They will be doing the same duties but will be paid differently.
§ Mr. Wigg
Let me explain that I supported the differential when my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) introduced it. The acceptance of the principle of the differential, to my mind, was a very brave step for my right hon. Friend to take, particularly as the Labour Government had a narrow majority of six. It had my support then, and the principle has my support now. I think it is absolutely the right principle. What the Under-Secretary overlooks is this. The differential will be operating, let us say, in the Ordnance Corps. The flaw is to be found in the rate of pay which the men will get in their pay packets. If in the Ordnance Corps there will be men serving a short-service engagement in Category A, where these men are going to be, I should not have tabled this Amendment. But the hon. Gentleman is introducing a minimum below the rate which will be applicable in the units to which the overwhelming majority of these men will be sent. That is the point to which he ought to address his mind.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Ramsden
I take the point put by the hon. Gentleman. I think that what I shall say shortly will go at least some way to meet it. He has explained the principle of the differential. I think that it is a good principle and one that is clearly understood. It would be a mistake to breach it even in favour of these National Service men. It would not be fair to the rest of the Army.
The principle of the Regular Army pay code is that the longer a man is prepared to undertake to spend in the Army the higher the scale of pay which he will get as a Regular. That scale is easy to understand. It would be contrary to that principle to pay men who were not so committed as though they were committed to serve for six to nine years. Even supposing we were persuaded that it was right to throw aside this principle in the case of the retained men and give them the higher rates, then we should again arrive at a position where it would be unfair to the men who are on Regular engagements of less than six years. I 665 do not see how we could justify paying National Service men higher rates than these Regulars are getting.
The hon. Member for Dudley rightly said that the three-year engagement is less used now than it was. But it is still in force and does not apply only in the Brigade of Guards, which he mentioned. I have a list of eight corps where it is still in force, although it is now going out. There were 6,000 Regulars serving on this engagement on 1st January last. It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to try to justify to these Regulars that their Scale A rate of pay should continue to apply while National Service men were being given the higher Scale B rate. It would be an impossible position.
I can see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. He may say that a National Service man kept in for an extra six months is not strictly comparable with a Regular. But that comes down to how much of an increase over what he gets now is a fair quid pro quo for what we expect him to do. One cannot in the last resort measure this sort of thing in terms of cash.
I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposal is fair and reasonable. I think it compares more than favourably with anything done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in roughly similar circumstances. I believe it is a not unreasonable quid pro quo, which we can fairly give without breaching the important principles of Army pay. This will be fair to all the men in the Army, whether Regulars or National Service men.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. Wigg
If there is one word which no member of the Government can use in connection with this argument it is the word "unfair", because there can be nothing more unfair than to call a man up for two years and then keep him in for an extra six months. But that is being done in the interests of the State. The Under-Secretary of State keeps harping back to the Labour Government, but that Government did an awful lot for the Services. They set a new pattern for them and gave them a new deal which successive Conservative administrations have followed. It was 666 the Labour Government which breached the past, to their credit, and they often did so in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman cannot make a valid comparison with what happened in the Korean war. He ask me if I remembered what happened then. I do. An elephant never forgets. At that time my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did something else which was right. He held back the Regulars, saying, "If I have to hold National Service men back for an extra period I am going to hold the Regulars as well." The Secretary of State has half admitted that principle, because he is restricting discharge and the purchase of discharge by Regulars. But, on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, he is going no further because it would be unpopular politically or from the point of view of Regular recruiting. He has not done that which my right hon. Friend had the guts to do.
Then he says, "Now I am going to give them the rate of pay under Scale A." Perhaps we can toss for it. I want to give them Scale B, he wants to give them Scale A. Do not let him imagine that he is standing over the Old Bailey with the Scales of Justice in his hands, because he is not. He has lost the fight with the Treasury, which is the Army's ancient enemy, as I have many times said. But having lost that fight he should have come and sought the support of this Committee instead of giving in.
If this matter were left to a free vote of the Committee there would be an overwhelming majority for the higher pay and he knows it. If he cannot do what I ask, then it shows that one must get in a position to be able to force one's will. Let the one-day strikers take note. Let the union leaders take note. These National Service men were called up for two years. They have been sold down the river and are to be kept in for an extra six months. But the Secretary of State will not give them extra pay, or give anything in terms of a bounty, in order to make up for the financial ruin which this Bill will mean to many of them. What we propose would remove from many young men the fear of financial hardship, but the Secretary of State has refused because the Treasury is so 667 hard. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support me in the Lobby.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) uttered the last sentence, because I was afraid that this was degenerating into a three-way contest between him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the Under-Secretary of State for War. They have used technical jargon which those of us who have not been in the Army recently do not find quite consistent with the language that was used when we were personally interested in this matter.
The Committee should know what amount of money is in dispute. I am told that I can find it in the Army Estimates if I look at three separate pages, but surely the Secretary of State can tell us how much a private in a certain unit which is affected gets as a National Service man, how much he would get on Scale A and how much he would get on Scale B. I do not care whether the figure is more or less, but it should be put frankly before the Committee.
My hon. Friend referred to the severe disability that is being inflicted upon these men who were called up for two years but now find they must stay in the Army for another six months, and for those who have left the Service and are being recalled—especially the officers and, doubtless, some N.C.O.s as well, who come into the categories prescribed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
I sincerely hope that those who wish to do the right thing in this matter as between man and man will be given a statement about numbers and ranks and regiments sufficient to enable us to make up our minds about whether the Government's proposal can be justified, so that if we meet a National Service man who complains, we shall be able to feel that we can tell him that the Government have behaved reasonably, or that he has not been justly treated.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not be deluded into thinking that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley is the only Member who has served in the ranks of the 668 Army. I recollect that my friend, whom some hon. Members will remember, Mr. Thurtle, who was the Member for Shore-ditch at the time, used to jeer at me for the rank which I had managed to get in the Army, but I was able to say that at any rate I have never joined the officer class.
If there is a feeling among the rank and file that they just do not count and that their voices are not heard in these matters and that their feelings are not considered, we will not build up that reasonable body of men doing an essential job which is what everybody wants to see. I hope that we shall be told something definite so that we can understand what this hot dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the Secretary of State is all about.
§ Mr. Wise
I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment and I only hope that my right hon. Friend will note that great hardship is being inflicted on a certain number of men. I have never been wholly convinced that the difference between national peril and national salvation rests on about 16,000 men, but I am prepared to accept that, if necessary. However, I make the plea that if it is not possible to go all the way to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my right hon. Friend will do something for the worst hit class of all—those called back from civil life. They will suffer to an extent not approached by the men who are retained. Many of them will have started careers which they may have to sacrifice, and, although no compensation is likely to be adequate, at least this small number of men should receive the pay of a Regular soldier on a three-year engagement.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
I, too, support the Amendment. I have never been satisfied that the National Service man—quite apart from the National Service man who is now being compelled to serve an additional six months—should have been paid as badly as has been the case. It should always be remembered in any discussion of the differential rates of pay for a Regular and a National Service 669 soldier that the Regular chooses to go into the Army and knows what are the conditions, but the National Service man has no such choice.
It may be said that he ought to serve his country, but we must also consider the considerable interruption to his career and the considerable hardship which often follows calling up a man for National Service, especially if he is an older man, the sort of person with whom we are now dealing who has delayed his call-up in order, for instance, to finish an apprenticeship. When a man is compelled to serve an additional six months, he ought not to be paid at the rate of the lowest category of those who choose to be professional soldiers for three years. At the least he should be treated as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggests.
I recall a recent case which the Under-Secretary may have in mind. I was very grateful for what was done in this case which concerned a constituent of mine, a woman with a child, who came to see me and who told me that her husband was serving in Germany and affected by the Bill. She was sick and unable to work and was receiving from the Army less than she would have received on National Assistance. I took up the matter and it was examined and I was subsequently told that her husband was entitled to apply for an Army grant which existed for the purpose of meeting this type of difficulty. My constituent was awarded an additional 90s. a week for a number of weeks.
While I was grateful for that, it ought never to be necessary for a young woman whose husband has been called up—in this case he had been a skilled craftsman earning an excellent wage—to receive less than she would have received on National Assistance. It is quite wrong that young men who find themselves in these circumstances should have to leave their wives to submit to a means test. If the State takes a husband from his wife and child, or his wife and children, or even just his wife, the State takes on an obligation to look after them while he is in the Forces.
What the Amendment says is merely that men who, despite their wishes, find themselves compelled to continue their service for another six months, should be given at least as much as is paid to 670 those who volunteer for six years. I do not know what the figures are, but I understand that the number of men volunteering for three years is very small, the trifling number of 6,000 The lads who are being compelled to continue their service will be associating mostly with men who are paid on at least the six-year basis, so that these lads will be the poor relations, unable to maintain themselves as their colleagues can. In addition to that, they will have the worry of having left families at home.
The least which can be done is to pay them on the suggested basis and remove this slight. I should feel humiliated if I were drafted into the Army and my wife were left in a position of having to receive less than National Assistance. Indeed, I should be not humiliated but enraged. I hope that we will get away from the belief that National Service men have been properly paid. They have not been paid properly and they are not being paid properly now and they will still not he paid properly if they are paid for their extra service at the rates of the lowest grades of those who volunteer for service.
It is very important to keep in mind that the three-year men volunteer for their service and consequently accept its conditions. They may volunteer for three years just to have the opportunity to sample life, for instance. That is probably the reason why many of them volunteer and in general they do not have the domestic commitments which, we can justly think, many National Service men have. If they choose to go in, it is their free choice, but it is not the free choice of the National Service men who are compelled to stay on for another six months. The least that can be done is to give the retained men the rate of pay given to the six-year engagement Regular soldier. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)
I find myself approaching the Amendment with a rather divided mind. I can sympathise very much with the plight of the National Service man who finds himself compelled to serve for a period over and above that which he thought he was liable to serve in the first place. As many 671 hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, this is an unfair form of selective service. On the other hand, I am not at all sure how we can measure hardship in cash terms.
One of the problems is that if my right hon. Friend had decided that he would apply Scale B, for example, to remaining National Service men, the arguments now being advanced in support of the Amendment would be devoted to showing that it should be Scale C. We have already been told that about 6,000 men are on the lowest figure, which is paid for a three-year engagement. They might feel some sense of aggrievement if National Service men staying on for a further six months were paid at a higher rate than they received for a Regular engagement. It would have been much better if we had given special cash compensation for the particular hardship which we are asking these men to suffer, in the form of a bonus or gratuity at either the beginning or the end of their service, rather than play around with the pay scales which are the basis of our present discussion.
§ Mr. Wigg
It is perfectly true that the latest figure is that 6,000 men are serving a short-term engagement of three years, but the figure is running down fast and the target which the Government themselves have set is a run-down of 1,000 or 1,200 a year; so that the present number will quickly be reduced by half. What we are arguing is that we should give a bounty at the end of the service.
§ Mr. Hall
I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that that would be a better way of doing it, if it is felt necessary to give a form of cash compensation. As I said, I do not think that it is easy to assess this hardship in any form of cash. My own personal opinion is that it would have been better to scrap the Bill and start all over again. I do not blame my right hon. Friend, for he is dealing with a situation which he has inherited.
§ The Chairman
I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will not be led into going beyond the two Amendments which we are now discussing.
§ Mr. Hall
I apologise. I appreciate that I was straying beyond the bounds 672 of order and being led into expressing an opinion about the Bill which I ought not to have expressed.
I conclude by saying that I do not think that we can fairly assess this hardship in terms of cash. However, to pay retained National Service men the rate of pay suggested may cause some sense of aggrievement among existing Regular soldiers, and for that reason I could not support the Amendment as it stands.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would respond—and respond favourably—and perhaps that is his intention. I should like to put two or three additional points to him. May I follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the course of his interjection While the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was speaking, about the men on three-year engagement. Not too much can be made of that because, perhaps in the course of twelve months or, certainly, in the course of two years, there will no longer be a three-year engagement. It will have completely disappeared from the Army.
I understand that this is very largely a long-term proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said so when he introduced the Bill. He said that it was not a matter for immediate attention because these men might not be called up for a long time, if at all, apart from the "Ever-readies". By the time he proposes to call up these men for another six months or to retain the National Service men for another six months, the three-year engagement will have been completely abandoned. So there is no analogy.
The right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear when he introduced the Bill that his intention was not to call up blocks of men, but to single out men for special selection. He wanted technicians, tradesmen and the like. If that is his intention, he cannot treat these men as he would treat the generality of men called up for National Service. It is a quite different proposition. If he wants to get men into the Service on the cheap he had better say so, and we shall know where we are, but I do not suggest that that is what he is after. I submit that if he calls up these men for additional service and selects them as 673 technicians, craftsmen and the like, he should pay them proper rates of pay.
I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) Let us take the case of a man who is recalled for another six months. He has left the Service and found a job. He may be receiving what is called the average rate of pay which, I understand, is about £13 a week. That is what I am told, but there are many men—I know of them in my own constituency—getting very much less. Nevertheless, I accept that the craftsman, the engineer fitter and the like, has an average wage of about £13 a week. With a wife and a couple of children he manages to string along pretty well.
Then he is recalled. What is the first thing that happens? His remuneration is reduced. But here is something even worse. The man can, of course, provide an allotment out of his pay to be sent to his wife—perhaps a couple of pounds a week at the very most. He deprives himself of funds with which he might be able to obtain more recreation or amusement to soften the asperities of the Service. If he applies for the National Service grant what does he get? About £3 or £4 a week at the outside.
Thus the family income is substantially reduced. So the hardship is not only on the man himself, but also on his wife and family. That is asking too much. We say that these men should be remunerated in an adequate way. As my hon. Friend has said, these things cannot be assessed in terms of hard cash. I agree that when it is a matter of serving one's country that principle certainly applies. But there are more issues involved. After all, what have we done with this Army of ours?
For the past seventeen years since the end of the war, we have constantly raised the pay and increased the emoluments to attract more men into the Service, and we have managed to obtain a fairly large standing Army. Without these additional emoluments we would not have been able to retain these men. They would not have joined on long-service engagements unless they had been offered reasonable rates of pay. Everybody knows the difficulty about getting officers into the Army. It is exceedingly difficult to persuade young 674 men from the scholastic institutions which are inferior to the universities to come into the Service and be trained for a commission. They have to be offered higher rates of pay.
These National Service men are not asking for grandiose rates of pay. They are merely asking to be treated reasonably, and it is unfair for the Under-Secretary to say, "You cannot expect these National Service men to be paid a higher rate of pay than that received by the Regular soldier of a three-year engagement". But suppose they were? What would the three-year Regular service men do? They will be leaving the Army month by month, and it will make no difference to them.
If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are concerned about the effect on these three-year Regulars of a higher rate of remuneration for the National Service man, I suggest that the engagement of the three-year Service man should be extended. The right hon. Gentleman has never thought of that. If he has, he has not brought forward such a proposition.
What did we do when we were faced with the Korea affair? We retained National Service men and made no distinction in respect of Regulars. We kept them all in, and it was fair all round. Had we not done that, we should not have been able to make our contribution to the Commonwealth Brigade, in spite of having 400,000 men in the Army.
§ The Chairman
Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument.
§ Mr. John Hall
Would it be in order to ask whether there was a difference in pay at that time between the Regular and the National Service man?
§ Mr. Shinwell
I do not think that it would be out of order to reply to the hon. Gentleman's pertinent question. We started with a rather low rate of pay for the National Service man, but after 18 months his rate of pay was increased, though I am not prepared to say that in every case it went up to the rate of pay for the Regular soldier on a long-service engagement.
§ Mr. Ramsden
What I think is true to say is that at that time there was 675 not this business of higher rates of pay for a longer committal to serve. All Regulars were on the basic rate of pay.
§ Mr. Shinwell
There was a basic rate of pay for Regulars, but after a number of years' service, men received proficiency pay, star pay, tradesmen's pay, and so on. All the National Service men were on lower rates of pay for 18 months of their service. I insisted that something had to be done. It was not reasonable to expect National Service men after 18 months' service to receive only 4s. a day. The figure was raised to approximate to the average rate of pay of the Regular. This was done to persuade men who were doing their National Service to join the Regular Army.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide some additional remuneration by way of a bounty for these men at the end of their service, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and it may well be difficult to do this because of Treasury opposition—I suggest that the rates of pay of National Service men who are retained, or who are recalled, should be altered to approximate to the rate of pay of Grade II private.
I think that I am right in saying that when the National Service man is recalled he will get 16s. a day.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo)
I give the undertaking that it will be 16s. a day.
§ Mr. Wigg
My right hon. Friend must not fall for that one. A Group 3 Class A man receives 16s. a day. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to give many of these recalled men an Irishman's rise. My right hon. Friend ought to stick to Scale B without equivocation.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I will be obliged if somebody will tell me what the scale is. Is it 17s. or 18s.? In any event, I will take the highest figure.
§ Mr. Wigg
The scale is 18s. 6d. for Class III; 19s. 6d. for Class II and 20s. for Class I. A National Service man is not eligible for Class I rates of pay be- 676 cause it is not possible for him to have enough service to qualify, and when making a comparison it must be remembered that the National Service rates are increased by 6d. a day for the National Service man over 21.
§ Mr. Profumo
This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to persuade the Committee that we ought to pay them 16s. Now that he has found that this is not the scale, he wants to change what he proposed. He accepted that 16s. would be fair, and that is what the figure will be.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I said that I wanted the rates of pay for these men to approximate to the rates of pay of the second-grade private on Scale B. If I was misled, it was the right hon. Gentleman who misled me.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Wycombe was here last week when we were discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman and I had some correspondence about this. It was all very friendly, and everybody was amiable about it—certainly I was. The right hon. Gentleman informed me about the two rates of pay. The National Service man received 11s. and the Regular received 16s. I said that this was too great a disparity. Apparently I was mistaken about the figure, but that is the information I received from the right hon. Gentleman. I suggested that instead of giving the National Service man 11s. we should give him 16s. If the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that latter figure, it would not have occurred to me.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley thinks that I am falling for something, I am going to fall in with the higher rate of pay if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to it, but at any rate I hope that he will be reasonable about the whole matter and conform to the views of the Committee. It is obvious that everyone in the Committee wants the National Service men who are called up and retained to get a fair deal. We do not want these men to be more discontented than is necessary. Let us, at any rate, present an appearance of justice and fairness, and let the men understand that we are thinking about their needs and are anxious to provide for them and their families the kind of 677 life which is comparable to the kind of life we want for people in civil occupations.
§ Mr. Ramsden
It seems that the Committee is fated not to have a discussion about this matter without getting drawn into techincalities about rates, which I began by saying that I was anxious to avoid. I want to give some details in reply to questions raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked for some examples of the rates of pay National Service men were now getting, and what they would get when they go on to the three-year Regular rate. The ordinary Grade II private—and the majority will be in Grade II—who is over 21 years of age and has completed over eighteen months' service, as a rifleman, fusilier, or whatever the case may be, is now receiving 11s. a day and will go on to the Scale A rate of 16s. a day.
Among the later release groups which may be retained there will probably be a rather higher than normal percentage of tradesmen and technicians, because among them will be many who will have been deferred. A tradesman, receiving 12s a day as a National Service man, will receive 17s. a day, and a National Service technician who is at present receiving 12s. a day will receive 19s. 6d. The pay of the ordinary lance-corporal will rise from 11s. 6d. at the National Service rate to 18s., and if he is a technician it will rise from 12s. 6d. to 21s. 6d.
These increments are what we, in the North Country—and the right hon. Member for South Shields will understand it—call into-pocket increments, over and above the ordinary allowances in respect of food and quartering which a soldier receives. This is a fair point to make. When we take into consideration the commitments which other people in civilian life have to allow for out of their pay packets, we see that many of these will have previously been met for the soldier, so that the increases we are proposing are direct into-pocket increases.
§ Mr. Lawson
Will the hon. Member answer the question I raised about the recalled National Service man who has a wife and child? What will the wife and child receive, and what will the 678 soldier have to give up in respect of them?
§ Mr. Ramsden
We have been over all this ground. The National Service man, if married, will receive a marriage allowance, which will rise from the present rate of £2 2s. a week to £3 17s. a week, because he will be drawing marriage allowance at the unaccommodated rate. He will be eligible for a National Service grant which, as the hon. Member knows, is assessed by taking the family's needs and then by deducting the amount of marriage allowance and the qualifying allotment which the soldier makes to his wife out of his pay in order to get the allowance. Subject to that, National Service men on the higher rate of pay and with marriage allowances will continue to receive National Service grants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) asked about special treatment for men falling under Clause 2. We debated this matter earlier, but my hon. Friend may have forgotten that we are to pay a special gratuity to men recalled under that Clause.
From the remaining points which have been raised since I last replied it is clear that hon. Members of the Committee find themselves in fundamental disagreement. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was right when he said that it is very difficult to assess this matter in terms of cash, and that, in all probability, if the Government had suggested the rate for which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is asking, the human feelings that animate Oppositions at these times would have prompted hon. Members opposite to ask for an even higher rate. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. I regard what my right hon. Friend is proposing as fair, for the reasons which I tried to give the Committee when I first spoke, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendments which the hon. Members are proposing.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)
I cannot agree with the closing words of the Under-Secretary. I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that it is completely wrong to approach this problem by trying to compensate by a cash payment 679 the tearing away from his home and family for a period of up to six months someone who is recalled under Clause 2. We cannot properly compensate such a person. But we are on a completely different argument at the moment. We are considering whether such a man should be paid on the three-year scale or on Scale B. The argument that such a man should be paid on Scale C instead of Scale B would not stand up for five minutes.
The only justification that we have had for not accepting the Amendments and paying these men on the three-year scale is that 6,000 men at present in the Army are serving a three-year engagement, and that they will feel dissatisfied if men who have done eighteen months or two years' National Service are called back for a further period and are paid on the three-year scale.
That argument completely ignores the fact that these 6,000 men are serving voluntarily on three-year engagements; that they have signed on the dotted line to serve for a certain time at a certain rate of pay, knowing that, in the vast majority of cases, they could probably have signed on for a period of six years or even longer and obtained a higher rate, if they had so desired. They signed on for a period of three years and they knew the conditions under which they were going to serve.
The National Service men with whom we are dealing will have had no choice in the matter. They thought that they would serve only for a specific period, but they will find that we are changing the rules of the game and that they are being asked to serve for another six months. There is no comparison between the National Service men whom we are talking about and the 6,000 men who have entered into voluntary agreements to serve for three years.
Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out—and this has not been contradicted—most of the men who will be recalled for a period of up to six months will in all probability be serving in units which will not contain any of the 6,000 men on three-year engagements. My hon. Friend took the line that it was most unlikely that, in a unit containing men who had been recalled for a period of 680 up to six months, there would be any men serving a three-year engagement, although there would probably be a considerable number of men on six-year engagements.
We were given a categorical assurance during the Second Reading debate, by the Secretary of State himself, that when these men were retained for six months or recalled for a period of up to six months they would be given Regular rates of pay.
§ Mr. Profumo
I specifically referred to Regular rates of pay, Scale A.
§ Mr. Reynolds
I am open to correction on that point, but I cannot remember any reference to a scale. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends will he able to find it.
§ Mr. Wigg
The Minister did not mention any scale. He said:From the date when they would have been released they will receive the increased rates of pay laid down for men on three-year Regular engagements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 49.]
§ Mr. Profumo
I did not try to delude the House in any way. To be absolutely accurate, it would be the three-year rate. I have said that from the beginning.
§ Mr. Reynolds
I accept that. But it was not until I looked at the Army Estimates a few weeks later—and not being an expert I had to do that to find the particular rates of pay applicable to certain grades—that I realised that such a man would not receive the rate of Regular pay that the overwhelming majority of Regular soldiers are receiving at present.
When I sat in the House and heard the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, I was under the impression that these men were to get a fair deal. But when I looked at the matter to find out exactly how much extra money they would get, I saw that something quite different was to happen from that which I concluded would happen while I was listening to the Minister. The vast majority of hon. Members—I think it safe to say every hon. Member in the House except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who probably realised at the beginning the exact importance of the right hon. 681 Gentleman's statement—were under the same impression as myself.
All hon. Members, surely, feel that if a man is to be recalled and is to serve in a unit which is being reinforced by men recalled under Clause 2 for a particular purpose and a particular emergency, then he will be treated as a Regular soldier and he should be treated as the same type of Regular soldier as the other men in that unit. I do not think that we should take for the purposes of comparison an unusual element of the Army, the comparatively small proportion of men who voluntarily signed on for three years at a lower rate of pay than the majority of Regular soldiers are receiving, and say that this is the rate of pay which the National Service man having these
§ obligations placed upon him should receive.
§ I am certain that most hon. Members thought, as I thought on Second Reading, that this National Service man would get the same pay as most other Regular soldiers. We were extremely disappointed when we found that this was not so. We are even more disappointed now to learn that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ I hope that an overwhelming number of hon. Members will vote in favour of the Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there added:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 227.683
|Division No. 78.]||AYES||[6.22 p.m.|
|Albu, Austen||Healey, Denis||Peart, Frederick|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, B.)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)||Pentland, Norman|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Prentice, R. E.|
|Baird, John||Hilton, A. V.||Probert, Arthur|
|Beaney, Alan||Holman, Percy||Proctor, W. T.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Holt, Arthur||Randall, Harry|
|Bence, Cyril||Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)||Rankin, John|
|Benson, Sir George||Hoy, James H.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Reynolds G. W.|
|Blyton, William||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Bowden, Sir H. W. (Leics, S.W.)||Hunter, A. E.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bowles, Frank||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Boyden, James||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Rodgers, G. H. R. (Kengaington, N.)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jeger, George||Ross, William|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Short, Edward|
|Butler, Mn, Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Callaghan, James||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Chapman, Donald||Kelley, Richard||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Small, William|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||King, Dr. Horace||Snow, Julian|
|Cronin, John||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Darling, George||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Deer, George||Lipton, Marcus||Steele, Thomas|
|Diamond, John||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Dodds, Norman||MacColl, James||Stonehouse, John|
|Donnelly, Desmond||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stones, William|
|Driberg, Tom||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||McLeavy, Frank||Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bllston)||Manuel, A. C.||Swingler, Stephen|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Marsh, Richard||Symonds, J. B.|
|Evans, Albert||Mayhew, Christopher||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mellish, R. J.||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Fitch, Alan||Mendelson, J. J.||Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Millan, Bruce||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Milne, Edward J.||Tomney, Frank|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mitchison, C. R.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Monslow, Walter||Warbey, William|
|Ginsburg, David||Morris, John||Weitzman, David|
|Gourlay, Harry||Moyle, Arthur||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Grey, Charles||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phillip(Derby, S.)||White, Mrs. Elrene|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Oliver, C. H.||Wigg, George|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Oram, A. E.||Willey, Frederick|
|Hall, Ht. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Paget, R. T.||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Pargiter, G. A.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hannan, William||Parker, John||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Pavitt Laurence||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)||Woof, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Winterbottom, R. E.||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)||Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.|
|Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Green, Alan||Percival, Ian|
|Aitken, W. T.||Gresham Cooke, R.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Allason, James||Gurden, Harold||Pilkington, Sir Richard|
|Arbuthnot, John||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Balniel, Lord||Hare, Rt. Hon. John||Pott Percivall|
|Barber, Anthony||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Barter, John||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Batsford, Brian||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Profumo, Rt. Hon. John|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tulton||Hay, John||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Bell, Ronald||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Ramsden, James|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Hendry, Forbes||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Biffen, John||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hiley, Joseph||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Renton, David|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hirst, Geoffrey||Rippon, Geoffrey|
|Bossom, Clive||Hobson, John||Robertson, sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Holland, Philip||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Box, Donald||Hollingworth, John||Roots, William|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hornby, R. P.||Russell, Ronald|
|Brewis, John||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter||Hughes-Young, Michael||Seymour, Leslie|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Shaw, M.|
|Brooman-White, Ft.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Shepherd, William|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Iremonger, T. L.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Jackson, John||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Bryan, Paul||James, David||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Buck, Anthony||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Speir, Rupert|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Stodart, J. A.|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Kaberry, Sir Donaldd||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Chataway, Christopher||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Chichester-Clarke, R.||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Tapsell, Peter|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Kershaw, Anthony||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Kirk, Peter||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r.Moss Side)|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Leavey, J. A.||Teeling, Sir William|
|Cole, Norman||Leburn, Gllmour||Temple, John M.|
|Collard, Richard||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Thompson, Richard (Croydon.S.)|
|Costain, A. P.||Litchfield, Capt. John||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Coulson, Michael||Longden, Gilbert||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Loveys, Walter H.||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Turner, Colin|
|Curran, Charles||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Currie, G. B. H.||McLaren, Martin||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Dance, James||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||McMaster, Stanley R.||Vane, w. M. F.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Maddan, Martin||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Doughty, Charles||Maitland, Sir John||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Walker, Peter|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Eden, John||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Wall, Patrick|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Mawby, Ray||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Emery, Peter||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Webster, David|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Mills, Stratton||Whitelaw, William|
|Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Montgomery, Fergus||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Morgan William||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Farr, John||Morrison, John||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Neave, Airey||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Gammans, Lady||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Gibson-watt, David||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Woollam, John|
|Gilmour, Sir John||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William||Partridge, E.||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R,||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.