§ Mr. WadeI beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
or(d) being the spouse or child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years of a person of a description specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection".By now the Home Secretary will be becoming familiar with this wording, as I have moved similar Amendments to other Clauses. When discussing Clause 1, dealing with the general subject of immigration, I moved an Amendment the effect of which was to allow a wife and family of an immigrant to come into this country and not to be subject to control under Part I. The Government expressed a preference for that to be dealt with under Clause 2 and an Amendment was moved to Clause 2 by the Government. It did not go so far as I wished, but it dealt with this subject in principle. On Clause 6 I raised a similar question, but I was less successful.The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 17 is to exempt from control three categories of person. I think a fair summary of these categories is: (1) a member of the home forces subject to the Naval Discipline Act, 1957; (2) a member of any Commonwealth force or any force raised under the law of any Colony, Protectorate or protected State, coming to this country to serve or to undergo training, and (3) a member of the forces of any country designated for the purpose of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the wife and family of such a person will also be admitted to this country if they so wish. I suggest that 1162 this is a reasonable Amendment. As the principle was accepted by the Government on Clause 2, I hope that a similar provision will be accepted on this Clause.
This morning I was discussing defence with a defence expert. Obviously it would he very much out of order to discuss that now, but I asked him, "How is it that in the earlier days of this century when we had such very wide commitments we were able to man all those outposts of empire?" His answer was, "The Indian Army." Today, with lesser commitments, we have very great difficulty in finding the necessary manpower.
We are having to recruit from various parts of the Commonwealth, including the West Indies. It may well be that we shall find this recruitment from the West Indies of increasing importance. As an aside, one may say that it is perhaps a little anomalous that as a result of this Bill we shall not recruit our forces from Southern Ireland but allow Southern Irish in free while, on the other hand, we recruit forces from the West Indies but impose immigration controls upon them.
I am informed—if this is not correct I hope I shall be told so—that the practice is for West Indians to be called upon to pay their own passage to this country if they are to serve in our forces and that they come here for six months on trial. It seems a little unreasonable that they should have to pay their own fares, but I am told that that happens at present. We are relying on recruitment from the Commonwealth. If they are willing to help us in our defence, surely we should permit their wives and families to come here. If they have to pay their fares it is doubtful whether they can afford to bring their wives and families. I should have thought that we 1163 should establish the principle clearly in this Bill.
It may be suggested by the Government that this matter can be covered by subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State power to extend exemption by order, but throughout discussion of the Bill we have been told so often to rely on the discretion of the Home Secretary. I think we should ensure that principles such as this—which is a very reasonable one, providing for the wife and family of a man who is to serve in our forces—should be written into the Bill. I hope the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke)Wives and dependent children up to the age of 16 of Service men coming here will be admitted under the Amendments made to Clause 2. The Amendments to Clause 2 embrace a wife or child under 16 years of age. They would be admitted.
Clause 17 is rather different from Clause 2. Its purpose, in subsection (1), is to grant exemption from both Part I and Part II to those who have total immunity from process, not only for their official acts, but also for their personal acts—that is to say, ambassadors and people of that sort and, in the case of a Commonwealth country, High Commissioners as well. Subsection (2) deals with those who are to be exempt from the entry provisions which are contained in Part II. It does not exempt them from deportation under Part II. It is concerned with those on whom generally there are controls other than those provided by this Bill.
I think the substance of the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is met by the Amendment made to Clause 2, subject, of course, to the difference for the dependent child up to 16 in one case and 21 in another case. As will be seen—subject to any Amendments made today—when the instructions we have been debating earlier today are published, a very large and ample discretion will be given to immigration officers for dependent children, certainly those up to the age of 18. Higher than that it might be rather dangerous to go, although if they 1164 are in fact dependants they will be admitted.
If one reads the strict letter of this Liberal Amendment, one finds that it does not mean that the family need be here at all. It is possible, for example, for a child of someone not in this country but subject as a member of the home forces to the Naval Discipline Act and stationed at Singapore to come in absolutely free to the United Kingdom at the age of 20 without any of the tests to which under Clause 2 and other Clauses he would be liable. As the Amendment is drafted, that would be perfectly possible. Such a person is technically a member of the home Forces.
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeYes. The hon. Member may think that all people should be let in free of restriction.
§ Mr. WadeIf someone from the West Indies came here, joined our Forces, was then sent overseas and wished for some good reason to have his family stationed in this country, would that position be covered by the Bill as at present drafted without the Amendment?
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeYes. His wife and his dependent children up to the age of 16, if he is stationed here so as to be resident here—
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeThat raises a very nice point. If he is not stationed here but is stationed somewhere so that this is not his home base at all, his dependants and his wife would not be automatically admitted under Clause 2. If he is based here even though serving abroad, but in such a way as to be ordinarily resident here—in the case of the Navy, for example, if his home port is Portsmouth, Chatham or Devonport—even though he may be serving temporarily abroad, his wife and family would certainly be admissible under Clause 2.
It he is a citizen from overseas who does not have that connection with the United Kingdom, it seems to us anomalous that his son, say aged 20, who may be simply coming here in an ordinary way to get a job, like many 1165 of his contemporaries, should not have to pass through the same controls as his contemporaries will have to pass through. It would be, as it were, adventitious that his father happened to be a member of the Forces who was not resident here.
For children up to the age of 16 and for wives, the position is provided for already in the Bill. For children up to the age of 18, as I think the Committee will see, the position is provided for in the instructions. Beyond that age, if they are dependants and are coming as dependants, because they are dependent upon their father, and not independently, they will be admitted, because it is right that they should be.
§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)I have a high regard for the Joint Under-Secretary, but in spite of that regard I was astonished by part of the argument he has just advanced. He appears to think it anomalous that this country should allow into Britain the wives or families, if they are over 16, of people whom it has conscripted to fight for it and for the Commonwealth, unless they are based in Britain.
I submit that the Committee cannot accept this argument. It surely cannot accept the argument that it is all right to conscript people, or to induce people as mercenaries, from the West Indies to fight for the Commonwealth, but when it comes to having their wives or children in this country it is a very different matter. That is a matter which must be looked at very carefully—presumably to see if they are respectable. They are good enough to fight, but they are not good enough for us to allow their children or their wives to come here, unless they are based here. That, as I understood, was the Joint Under-Secretary's argument. He went on to say that if they are based here we may be good enough to extend some concession to them, but they will have no right to come to this country. I am astonished by that argument.
I can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier point that children under 16 and other people may be covered by Clause 2, but the Committee must repudiate the latter part of his argument. It is clear that if we are at the end of the Bill to have any standing whatever in the eyes of the Common 1166 wealth we cannot go on record as saying, "We want you to come and fight for us, but unless you are based in this country do not expect to be able to bring your wives and children here, unless they are under 16 or unless they have satisfied an immigration officer."
§ Mr. S. SilvermanLike the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am utterly astonished at the argument advanced by the Joint Under-Secretary. I am all the more astonished when I compare the argument he advanced to keep these people out, or at any rate not to give them a right to enter, with what he has already done in an earlier part of the Bill. My Amendment in page 12, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c), has not been called, and I cannot debate it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate the absurd contrast between the argument which must have led him to leave this paragraph in and the argument which prevents him from accepting this Amendment.
I will tell the Committee what it means. This Clause exempts some people from the operation of the Bill. Naturally, those of us who dislike the Bill altogether are reluctant to oppose any provision in it which exempts anybody from its operation, but paragraph (c) should be looked at closely in connection with the argument adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Paragraph (c) offers a wonderful opportunity to a Commonwealth citizen from whom the Bill takes away the right enjoyed up to now to enter the United Kingdom and who wants to evade that prohibition and continue to exercise his right to enter, in spite of the Bill. All he has to do as a Commonwealth citizen who is prohibited from entering is to join a foreign Army. If he joins a foreign army and an Order in Council has been made, or comes to be made, giving that foreign Army the benefit of the Visiting Forces Act, he can no longer be excluded from his homeland. A person cannot come in if he is a member or a relative of a member of a Commonwealth Army. A person cannot come in if he is not a member of any Army. But if somebody joins the German Army and the German Army is allowed to send a contingent to which he belongs to be trained here, 1167 his right to enter his homeland is restored. He is exempt from prohibition.
What an extraordinary provision! The more one looks at it the more extraordinary it becomes, because as I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the—
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert)Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendment on to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act.
§ Mr. SilvermanI fully understand that, Sir Norman. All I am doing is pointing to a reason why the Committee ought not to accept the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman advanced for rejecting the Amendment. I am saying that it is so wholly inconsistent with other provisions that he has made and which we cannot challenge that it makes no sense at all and the Committee should reject the argument. As I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the contingent from the foreign Army is here, they are no longer subject to our laws. They are exempted from them by the Visiting Forces Act.
There is the odd position, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Amendment, that a Commonwealth citizen is excluded by the Bill from entering. If he joins a foreign Army and the foreign Army is allowed here, he is allowed to come here, although once he is here he is not subject to the laws of this country but to the laws only of the country of the Force of which he is a member.
To make the thing more anomolous than ever, although one is exempt from the provisions of Part I which would otherwise keep one out, once one is in, exempted from Part I, Part II still applies, so one can be deported. They cannot prevent one from coming in but can deport one.
Let hon. Members contrast that with the situation that this Amendment was designed to meet. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here—I am told that he is, and I am delighted. I hope that he will give us a reply, because the Under-Secretary was not member of the 1168 Government at the time when the Visiting Forces Act was passed, and I do not know whether he remembers our discussions then—in any case, I shall not repeat them. The Home Secretary knows about that Act, and I am sure that he appreciates the force of my argument.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to accept very graciously the rather half-hearted compliment I paid him in a previous debate, and it is possible that he might now reciprocate. I then said that there was some force in his argument, and I am sure that he appreciates that there is some force in mine. If he intends to persist in the rejection of this Amendment, surely at some suitable opportunity, as we proceed with the Bill, he should look again at this reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument contained in subsection (2, c.)
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeI am sorry to have lost the esteem of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The origin of this desire to give wives and children special treatment in coming to this country was the very natural one of preserving the unity of the family. I remember one right hon. or hon. Member opposite saying, "Whom God has joined together, let not the Secretary of State put asunder". It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend obtained the Amendments to Clause 2; so that the family should be treated as a unit, and so that, if the head of the family is here, the wife and dependent children should be admitted pretty well without question because they depend upon him.
If the head of the family is not here, which was a point that aroused the ire of the right hon. Gentleman, the argument about a family being torn asunder does not apply. That was why I said that if the head of the family is based on this country—not here temporarily, but based here—the rules relating to the preservation of the family will apply, but that if he is not here permanently, or based here, those rules do not apply. That is why, I drew the distinction, and for that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it is an unworthy, illogical or invalid distinction, however much he may dislike wives and children—and any one—being kept out at any time.
1169 The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with great ingenuity, attached his argument to the Liberal Amendment, but it related to a totally different point. I do not suppose that he would be any more keen than others that the wives and children of members of visiting forces should be allowed to come here—the Germans going to South Wales, and that sort of thing. I do not know that he is particularly concerned with that. It is a quite different point, and I therefore hope that he will not think me discourteous if I do not answer his general commination of the Visiting Forces Act, and the steps taken under it.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanThere was no commination at all. We are not discussing the Visiting Forces Act, or any arrangement with foreign countries to allow foreign troops to come to this country. All I say is that we shall have an anomalous and ridiculous situation if we allow people who join foreign armies to come here without let or hindrance and yet reject this Amendment.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)First, there is a purely drafting point which I believe to be of great importance, and which has been raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Subsection (2, b) relates to "any Commonwealth force" and paragraph (c) relates to
…a member of the forces of any country designated for the purposes of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, by Order in Council…Is it not correct to say that that is not exclusively referable to Commonwealth forces but to foreign forces as well; that, therefore, as a matter of interpretation, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is perfectly correct; and that, therefore, this is something that goes outside the ambit of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and relates to far wider issues and to foreign forces?Secondly, following on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we might have a West Indian coming to this country. He is trained briefly here in transit, say, for Kenya or—one hopes not, but it is possible—Northern Rhodesia, or some other part of our 1170 Colonial Territories and, at the end of the year, knows that he is to be posted back here. Some three or four months before he is due to return—that is to say, before he becomes based—he wants his wife and children to come to this country to set up house. In those circumstances will he have the right for his relatives to come here, or is that still only a matter of special favours being granted by the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeParagraph (c) applies only to members of what I may call foreign armies who are also citizens either of independent Commonwealth countries or of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I use the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" as an omnibus term, because that is the technical expression, although the "United Kingdom" part of it may be somewhat misleading. It is therefore unlikely that the paragraph will deal with many people.
On the other matter, I can give the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) an undertaking that in the situation he envisages, that is to say, if a Commonwealth citizen has come here, has enlisted, and has been sent somewhere to do a job for that sort of period but wants his family home in England on his return, they will be admitted.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. ChapmanI beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
or,(d) is a bona fide servant of the government of any Commonwealth country or colony, visiting the United Kingdom on the business of his government".This is a simple Amendment, and I hope that it commends itself to the Under-Secretary. The point I am raising is a simple one: that many constituent parts of the Commonwealth have officials and servants who, monthly, if not weekly, journey between London and their home countries on matters concerning the Commonwealth, their countries' relations with Britain, and who represent part of the general traffic of officials between London and all parts of the Commonwealth.Many of these officials will not, as I understand it, fall under Clause 17 (1). In other words, many of them will not 1171 be of a sufficiently high rank of officialdom whereby they are entitled to immunity from suit and legal process. The point of the Amendment is that it is utterly humiliating for officials of minor rank on arrival at our ports to have to prove, every time they come here, the specific purposes for which they are coming and to ask for entry on each occasion. This would be completely outside the sort of thing I am sure all hon. Members would wish to have happen as a result of the Bill.
I would much rather see the sort of system whereby an official of this kind would simply have stamped in his passport the fact that, for the time being, he is an official of whatever part of the Commonwealth it may be, journeying to London or various parts of the world—or however the constituent country would wish to phrase it—on the specific business of his country. In these circumstances, he would, on arrival at the port, simply have to produce this page in his passport and that would be a simple method of securing him immediate entry without all the humiliating business of having to go through the immigration officers who would have to go into the exact reasons for his coming here.
One of the best examples of this is the sort of official who will be concerned with the operation of the Bill. The West Indies are now having to appoint more officers to help with the flow of migrants to this country. Officials of this kind are at the moment in monthly, if not weekly, consultation with Government Departments here to work out the operation of the Bill. They must come to the ports like anyone else, but, after the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to justify their entry every time they arrive, answer many questions and there will be no automatic process whereby they may be given immediate entry.
It is essential that these people should be granted automatic and complete immunity from the operation of the Bill. This Amendment contains a straightforward principle and I hope that the Government will accept it without further question.
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeOne of the things that this Amendment would not do if it were passed would be to give the people described by the hon. Gentleman the 1172 Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) complete exemption from the operation of the Bill, because he has attached it to subsection (2) which only exempts them from Part I and not from Part II.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that it is wrong that such people should in any way be harrassed or held up at the ports if they are on important official business. It is for this reason that Clause 17 (3) was included in the Bill so that additional classes of persons may be added to those who either should have complete immunity, as the hon. Gentleman wants, or partial immunity, as subsection (2) envisages.
There will be a long and fluctuating list of classes to cover these people, who are not the grand officials carrying full immunity and have it in their passports and who are, anyway, easily recognised. It was considered that it would be unwieldy to have such a list in the Bill, but that it should be made by Order which would have to be laid according to subsection (4). Thus, if the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member think that there are too many or too few on the list there will be an opportunity for them to say so.
§ Mr. FletcherIf it only comes up by way of Statutory Instrument, what can hon. Members do about it?
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeI realise that it will not be possible to amend it, but great attention will be paid to any argument, if it is a good one, that either it is not comprehensive enough or that it extends immunity too far. This happens in other matters concerning governmental immunity. It is often said that it is extended too far and, as I say, it can be debated and the Government would take note of the comments made.
It is for that reason, in general, that the point of the Amendment is substantially met by the Bill and by the Statutory Instrument which it envisages. The difficulty always exists that it cannot always be entirely comprehensive. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman at once. There is no intention to make the official prove his business, but should he not be included in the list of those who may be admitted freely then it is desirable that he should prove his identity. He will not be asked why 1173 he is coming here, or how long he proposes to stay, and so on. He will be asked to prove—if he says that he is here on a Government mission and he does not happen to be in the list included in the Statutory Instrument for the time being—his identity and show a document saying that he is the Mr. X concerned.
That does not seem to be particularly humiliating. We frequently all have to prove our identities by the production of our passports, or some other document. If the man is not on the list that my right hon. Friend will append to the Statutory Instrument, there is no intention of subjecting him to any humiliation.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman, who ha; a good point, to recognise that this is substantially met by subsection (3). If he is determined that these people should have all the advantages of those coming under subsection (1), I ask him to help us when we come to lay the Instrument.
§ Mr. FletcherI hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) will press his Amendment, in view of the disappointing and unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State. It is not good enough to say that these people can rely on the Statutory Instrument. We cannot continually amend it to cover the different classes of people who will come here on Government missions from the various parts of the Commonwealth.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to say clearly that bona fide servants of Commonwealth Governments can be exempted. We are continually
§ being told that the Government intend to operate the Measure in a liberal way, yet when they are given an opportunity of doing something definite they make these kinds of excuses for resisting an Amendment which would make it perfectly clear that certain people are entitled to come here without being asked a lot of questions.
§ The fact that the Government take it upon themselves to raise these flimsy excuses for refusing to accept a reasonable and modest Amendment of this kind belies all the assurances we keep receiving from them about the humane, sympathetic and generous way in which they intend to treat Commonwealth subjects. The very opposite seems to be their intention, judging by their attitude towards this reasoned Amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
§ Mr. ChapmanI am very disappointed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I know that he meant to be helpful. That is the strange part of it. But what he said was not really helpful. What will happen now is that in the hands of every immigration officer will be a list showing every kind of official who is to be admitted, all the undersecretaries or people up to a certain rank—
§ It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 262.
1177| Division No. 84.] | AYES | [6.0 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Brockway, A. Fenner | Dodds, Norman |
| Ainsley, William | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Driberg, Tom |
| Albu, Austen | Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Ede, Rt. Hon. C. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Edelman, Maurice |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Callaghan, James | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) |
| Awbery, Stan | Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Chapman, Donald | Evans, Albert |
| Beaney, Alan | Cliffe, Michael | Fletcher, Eric |
| Bellenger, Rt, Hon. F. J. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) |
| Bence, Cyril | Crosland, Anthony | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) |
| Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Forman, J. C. |
| Benson, Sir George | Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Blackburn, F. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Blyton, William | Davies Ifor (Cower) | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) |
| Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.) | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Ginsburg, David |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Deer, George | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Bowles, Frank | Delargy, Hugh | Gourlay, Harry |
| Boyden, James | Dempsey, James | Grey, Charles |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Diamond, John | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | McInnes, James | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Mackie, John (Enfield, East) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Small, William |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Mahon, Simon | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Hannan, William | Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Snow, Julian |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Manuel, A. C. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Hayman, F. H. | Mapp, Charles | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Healey, Denis | Marsh, Richard | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis) | Mason, Roy | Steele, Thomas |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Mayhew, Christopher | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Mendelson, J. J, | Storehouse, John |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Millan, Bruce | Stones, William |
| Hilton, A. V. | Milne, Edward | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Holman, Percy | Mitchison, G. R. | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Holt, Arthur | Monslow, Walter | Symonds, J. B. |
| Houghton, Douglas | Morris, John | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Howell, Charles A. (Perry Birr) | Moyle, Arthur | Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Neal, Harold | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Hoy, James H. | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) |
| Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oliver, G. H. | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Oram, A. E. | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Oswald, Thomas | Timmons, John |
| Hunter, A. E. | Padley, W. E. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Parker, John | Wade, Donald |
| Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Parkin, B. T. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Paton, John | Warbey, William |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Pavitt, Laurence | Watkins, Tudor |
| Jeger, George | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Weitzman, David |
| Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Peart, Frederick | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Pentland, Norman | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Popplewell, Ernest | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Jones, Dan (Bumley) | Prentice, R. E. | Whitlock, William |
| Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Probert, Arthur | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Proctor, W. T. | Willey, Frederick |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Randall, Harry | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Kelley, Richard | Rankin, John | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Rhodes, H. | Williams, W. R (Openshaw) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Ledger, Ron | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Ross, William | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Lipton, Marcus | Royle, Charles (Salford, West) | Woof, Robert |
| Loughlin, Charles | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Short, Edward | Zilliacus, K. |
| McCann, John | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | |
| MacColl, James | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Bullard, Denys | du Cann, Edward |
| Aitken, W. T. | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Duncan, Sir James |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) | Duthie, Sir William |
| Allason, James | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Eden, John |
| Arbuthnot, John | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Cary, Sir Robert | Errington, Sir Eric |
| Barber, Anthony | Channon, H. P. G. | Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Chataway, Christopher | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Barter, John | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Farr, John |
| Batsford, Brian | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Finlay, Graeme |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Cleaver, Leonard | Forrest, George |
| Bell, Ronald | Cole, Norman | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Collard, Richard | Freeth, Denzil |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Cooper, A. E. | Gammans, Lady |
| Biffen, John | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | George, J. C. (Pollok) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Corfield, F. V. | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Costain, A. P. | Gilmour, Sir John |
| Bishop, F. P. | Coulson, Michael | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Courtney, Cdr. Anthony | Goodhew, Victor |
| Bossom, Clive | Craddock, Sir Beresford | Gough, Frederick |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Critchley, Julian | Gower, Raymond |
| Box, Donald | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver | Grant, Rt. Hon. William |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. | Currie, G. B. H. | Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Dalkeith, Earl of | Green, Alan |
| Braine, Bernard | Dance, James | Gurden, Harold |
| Brewis, John | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Deedes, W. F. | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) |
| Brooman-White, R. | de Ferranti, Basil | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Bryan, Paul | Doughty, Charles | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Buck, Antony | Drayson, G. B. | Hastings, Stephen |
| Hay, John | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Shaw, M. |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Shepherd, William |
| Hendry, Forbes | McMaster, Stanley R. | smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Hiley, Joseph | Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Smithers, peter |
| Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Maddan, Martin | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Hocking, Philip N. | Maginnis, John E, | Speir, Rupert |
| Holland, Philip | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Hollingworth, John | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Hopkins, Alan | Marten, Neil | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Hornby, R. P. | Mawby, Ray | Stodart, J. A. |
| Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Mills, Stratton | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Montgomery, Fergus | Tapsell, Peter |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Morgan, William | Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, MossSide) |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Morrison, John | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Temple, John M. |
| Jackson, John | Nabarro, Gerald | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| James, David | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Jennings, J. C. | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Page, John (Harrow, West) | |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Turner, Colin |
| Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Partridge, E. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Peel, John | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Kitson, Timothy | Percival, Ian | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Lagden, Godfrey | Peyton, John | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Leather, E. H. C. | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Leavey, J. A. | Pitman, Sir James | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Leburn, Gilmour | Pitt, Miss Edith | Walker, David |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Pott, Percivall | Walker, Peter |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Prior, J. M. L. | Wall, Patrick |
| Lindsay, Sir Martin | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Pym, Francis | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Litchfield, Capt. John | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Webster, David |
| Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) | Rawlinson, Peter | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Whitelaw, William |
| Longbottom, Charles | Rees, Hugh | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Longden, Gilbert | Renton, David | Wise, A. R. |
| Loveys, Walter H. | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Ridsdale, Julian | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| McAdden, Stephen | Roots, William | Worsley, Marcus |
| MacArthur, Ian | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | |
| McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Scott-Hopkins, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Seymour, Leslie | Mr. Chichester-Clark and |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.) | Sharples, Richard | Mr. McLaren. |
Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.
§ Clauses 18 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.