Clause 82.—(TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS.)

HC Deb 02 April 1963 vol 675 cc279-99

Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move, in page 92, line 36, at the beginning, to insert: carrying out the functions conferred on them by this section, and of".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

With this Amend- ment there can be debated the following Amendment, in line 40, after "Minister", insert: or any local authority (including any existing local authority) or any body representative of staff employed by any such local authority". which will be called for a Division if required, and the Amendments in line 44, after "and" insert: if so requested by the Commission shall give directions". In line 48, at end insert: and any direction given by the Minister under this subsection may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of the commission". In line 48, at end insert:

1. (5) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, the staff commission referred to in that subsection may give directions to the Greater London Council or a London borough council requiring them to submit to the commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, at such date before 1st October 1964 as the commission may specify, such details as may be prescribed in the directions of their proposed establishments of staff, together with a statement as to the places, situations or employments which they propose should be filled by persons to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London or should be made open to holders of any place, situation or employment in Greater London, or generally;
2. (b) any person affected by the provisions of any details or statement submitted under the foregoing paragraph, or any body representative of persons who are so affected, may appeal to the commission against any such provisions within twenty-one days from the date of such submission, and the Minister shall make regulations governing the manner in which such appeal shall be made and the procedure on such an appeal;
3. (c) within two months after the receipt of any details and statement submitted as aforesaid, the commission shall notify the Minister and the submitting authority of any objections which the commission may have to such details and statement and of any recommendations they may wish to propose to remedy the matter;
4. (d) except with the approval of the Minister or the commission, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall not advertise for, or appoint, any person as a member of their staff until two months after their submission to the commission of the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
5. (e) any scheme in respect of the transfer of staff prepared by a joint committee of existing authorities appointed under section 80 of this Act may, if submitted to the staff commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, before 1st October 1964, 281 be accept xl by the commission as a discharge in whole or in part of any obligation of the Greater London Council or a London borough council to submit the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
6. (f) in carrying out their functions under this section, the commission and the Minister shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London borough council, in making appointments to specific places, situations or employments, shall, so far as possible, fill such places, situations or employments from among persons who are holders of places, situations or employments which are affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act.

Mr. Skeffington

This is another case where, because of the guillotine procedure upstairs, we did not have a chance of discussing the character and status of the staff commission. This obviously is a matter of the very greatest consequence to the many thousands of people who will be involved in transfer from one authority to another. I am glad, even at almost the twelfth hour, to have some opportunity of hearing the Government's views on what kind of staff commission they want and whether or not they are prepared to accept some of the suggestions in the long Amendment which is the last in the list of those which are being discussed with the Amendment I am moving.

The Bill now provides that the Minister must establish a staff commission the functions of which are to be consultative and advisory and which in any case are entirely dependent upon reference to it by the Minister. The staff commission cannot take the initiative. I understand that reference must be made by the Minister, although of course he can, I suppose, make a reference in such broad terms, if he feels inclined to do so, as may cover all the major problems of staff.

The commission's advice when given to the Minister can be made binding on the authorities by the Minister. A great many of those involved, and the staff associations, are glad that the staff commission is now to be mandatory. They say that it should come into existence as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law so that it may be able to influence the action of the proposed joint committees of existing local authorities which will be established under the plan and so that it shall be able to advise, help and indeed influence the councils concerned. ft is desired that it should be able to discharge these functions as soon as may be practicable once the legal authority setting up the new authorities has been sanctioned.

If we look at the concept of a commission, we see that, to be an effective safeguard for the staff, some greater reference to its functions and duties should be more specifically defined in the Bill. Therefore, we have put down the last in this list of Amendments with specific heads, all of which seem very important if the commission, to put it crudely, is to have any "teeth". Otherwise it may be an advisory body of little significance, not trusted by the staff and not able to give very effective advice to the Minister or to have appropriate status in discussing problems of the staff with the new authorities.

The matters which we suggest should be specifically included in the Bill to give the commission the weight which we think ought to be attached to it in the interests of those who have given their lives to local government are included in the Amendment which is the last of those in the list we are considering. I hope that their purpose will be obvious from the wording. The first main concern is that the new authorities should, by 1st October, 1964—which gives them a few months' grace after coming into being by election—submit to the staff commission their proposed establishments together with a statement of what posts will be filled by staff to be transferred from existing authorities to the G.L.C., what posts should be filled by competition among existing staff and, thirdly, what category of staff will be recruited by advertisement.

This is a great pre-occupation among existing staffs. It seems that clarification at the earliest possible date should be given in a broad way to the staff commission. It is not suggested, of course, that any scheme under the proposed Amendment would be considered absolutely final in detail. That would be quite impossible, because many of the new functions, particularly of the London boroughs, have yet to be assessed in their effect on the locality, but it should be possible to give a broad indication to members of each of the categories which would greatly help to clarify the future position of the staff. Incidentally, it would help the other authorities, as well as the individual authority, to see the kind of complement of staff needed for the work.

The next major proposal we suggest is that, within a specified time, which will have to be worked out at a later stage after the information I have been suggesting has been given to the commission, the commission should be able to make its comments and objections to the proposed establishment. The purpose of this requirement is very obvious. It would enable a Ministerial direction to be given under the Clause, and individuals concerned would then have the opportunity to appeal. It is very important that staff or groups of staff who feel that new arrangements will be unjust to them should have the right, once they know what the position is, to appeal. If there is no such provision as we suggest in the Amendment, the procedure will be very much more ad hoc. I have no doubt that the Minister can make various regulations, and give directions, but one feels that a procedure of this kind, which would be clear and specific, is very much in the interests of the staff, and I know that this is the kind of procedure which they would like.

5.0 p.m.

The third major proposition is in connection with the staff and advertisements. The suggestion which we have put into the Amendment is that no new authority should advertise in appointing staff until it had put to the commission its establishment and statement under the third proposition that I have outlined. It should not be able to advertise without the approval of the staff commission and the Minister. This is to ensure that every effort will be made to employ existing staff before new staff is brought in from outside the area. I feel that this is the least concession that the House and the Government ought to be willing to make to the staff who are being disturbed. Many of them fear that without this proposal they may be thrown on the tender mercy of compensation only for either loss of office or an office which is not as remunerative as the one which they now enjoy.

I mentioned the other day in this connection that I noticed that the architect to one of the few boroughs that will remain in the future as now—Harrow—was appointed from outside the area. No doubt there will have to be some appointments of this character, but we want to ensure that everything is done first, before advertising, to employ the staff within the area. It seems to me that procedure of this kind is of great significance to them, and I hope that it will be considered worthy of statutory inclusion in the Bill.

The last major proposal is that the tentative scheme for the transfer of staff to the new authorities prepared by the joint committee of the existing authorities shall be capable of submission to the staff commission for approval in anticipation of the set-up of the new authorities. This seems to be very important in order that one can clear away the cases of people who are not fitted into the scheme and where such proposal could be referred to the staff commission. All this means very considerable work for the staff commission, but the staff commission is an extremely important body. It is charged with looking after the interests of the staff and the best use of them in the very complicated new set-up, and therefore I do not suppose that we need feel too cautious about asking it to do this work, because this is what the staff commission will have to undertake in one way or another if it does the duty. All that we are suggesting is that the kind of work which it no doubt will be doing will be specifically defined in the Bill so that there can be no doubt that every one of the cases that have been mentioned is adequately considered.

The series of Amendments taken together would give a guarantee that existing staffs would be used in the new authorities wherever possible, and used, of course, as we have tried to suggest earlier, in posts of comparable responsibility and remuneration.

One weakness that I can see in the Amendment—perhaps it is unwise to refer to it, but we want to get practical alternative suggestions from the Government—is that the detailed proposals that we have incorporated might have some effect upon the timetable of the Government changes in setting up the new structure. I do not think that this is an insuperable objection, given good will, and the kind of consultation between the Government and the staff commission and staff which I should have thought inevitable if the staff commission is to work at all.

If there is any way that the Government can suggest in which these objectives can be achieved, naturally in the interests of the staff one would be only too ready to examine them instead of these Amendments. The advice that I have had from all the staff associations—I do not think that there is any dispute by any of them on this point—is that the commission, as the Government have proposed it, is without adequate powers, possibly without adequate status, and the staffs collectively would like powers given to the staff commission which are more specific than those included in the Bill. There is, of course, a great number of staff involved. I am glad that we have time to discuss this matter, and I hope that the Government will feel that if they cannot accept the Amendment they should seek some other way in another place to see that the commission gets the kind of power which we think that it ought to have.

Mr. John Barter (Ealing, North)

I welcome the opportunity of discussing the extremely important position touching on the functioning of the staff commission. It would be no exaggeration to say that the staffs, particularly of the county councils affected, attach a great deal of significance to the functioning, the methods of functioning, and the opportunities provided to them in approaches to the staff commission when it is finally established.

Three principle criteria could be said to apply. First, the rapid appointment, notification and announcement of the setting up of the staff commission; secondly, that when it operates it should be seen to be operating in a completely fair way; and, thirdly, that its operation should be seen to be effective. With regard to the rapidity of appointment, I think that my right hon. Friend was hopeful at one stage of making an announcement, perhaps in advance of the conclusion of the proceedings on this Bill, to enable the staff commission to proceed, perhaps unofficially, in advance of the final acceptance of the Bill.

With regard to fairness, the Bill as at present drafted provides only for references to the staff commission from the Minister. I think that there are severe limitations if this is the only course to be adopted. My impression of this would be that no member of the staff who considers himself or his group of colleagues aggrieved by any situation should feel necessarily precluded from an approach to the Commission by his staff association or organisation. That is the purpose of the Amendment that I had hoped to move and that is now being discussed. The requirement of the staff commission in its operation should be, first of all, fairness to enable everyone to feel that his case could be properly considered by it, whether or not referred to it by the Minister, and, above all, that it should be seen that the staff commission is effective in its operation.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will have something to say on this score, be-case, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has already stated, there are a great many members of the staffs, particularly of the county authorities, although this is by no means limited to them, who look with some degree of fear to the agreements being embarked upon at the present time by the unofficial joint committees with regard to the future structure of the staffs in the districts, to the exclusion of their own personal interests.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

All hon. Members have been very worried about the staff position. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) said, that there should be direct communication between staff and the staff commission when it is set up, and I hope that it will be set up very soon. This is an essential point. Subject to what my right hon. Friend says, I do not see that there could possibly be any objection to that machinery. It strikes me that there could be many cases in which members of the staff wished to air their grievances, which might or might not be reasonable; but it would be the job of the staff commission to decide that. If members of the staff felt that they had direct access, it would to some extent relieve their worries.

Further, it is very important that the staff commission must have adequate authority. It must have the power to give settlements and make awards which it considers right. I hope that not only will it be set up very promptly but that it will have sufficient powers and will also have machinery so that direct aproaches can be made. My right hon. Friend may say that direct approach goes against the normal machinery of negotiation. I submit that this is a very special case on the break-up of a big authority, and that special complications arise.

Sir K. Joseph

I am confused on one point here. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) moved the second and third of his three Amendments, namely, those in lines 44 and 48?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Perhaps I can help the Minister. The only Amendment which has been moved at present is the Amendment in page 92, line 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). It is possible to discuss with this Amendment, as we have discussed, the Amendments in lines 40, 44 and 48 in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) and the Amendment in line 48, also in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I have said that I propose, after a decision has been reached on the Amendment in line 36, if it is required to put the Amendment in line 40 for a Division but without further discussion.

Sir K. Joseph

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

This is, indeed, a most important subject, and I am glad that we have a little time to debate it. At the moment, the Government propose that the staff commission should be composed of three persons who will be part-time, paid, and served by a full-time staff seconded to them mostly from local government. There is an obligation on the Government to set up the staff commission within a month of the passage of the Bill into law, but there is every hope that in fact the commission will be set up informally well before then. I hope to be able to make an announcement about names soon—that is, within a matter of weeks rather than months. Then it will be necessary for the Government to consult the local authorities, the staff associations and the proposed members of the commission, to work out terms of reference.

The staff commission will be, as far as I am aware, the first of its kind. It will be a very important body. Its job will not finish in 1965. It will go on for some time afterwards. We cannot tell now how long. It is important that we should not shackle it by writing too many limitations into the Bill at this stage. That is why, despite all the things I shall say, which I hope will be encouraging, I shall ask at the end that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) should withdraw his Amendment. I have to satisfy him that that is the right course.

The staff commission, as we see it, will mostly work by persuasion. That is, we expect that it will, after study and consultation, lay down general principles to which the existing and the future local authorities will work. Behind that persuasion there lies the power of the Minister to give directions to local authorities if the Minister, after representations by the staff commission, judges it to be necessary.

5.15 p.m.

The staff commission will keep off subjects which are normally negotiated between staff associations and local government. It will leave pay and conditions of service to the normal negotiating machinery. Subject to these limitations, I believe that the staff commission, as at present proposed, will satisfy the criterion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—that is, that it will be rapidly set up, that it will be fair and be seen to be fair in the performance of its duties, and that it will be effective in the protection it gives to staff.

We would expect it, among other things, to take positive steps to ensure that posts are filled as far as possible from local government employees now working in Greater London. We would expect it to ensure that senior positions in the new boroughs, especially in connection with services transferred from the counties, should be filled only from short lists which the commission will approve, short lists which would include people now employed by the county councils. We would expect is to be directly accessible to representations from the local authorities and from the staff associations. We would expect it to take into careful account all representations which are made to it, but I would hesitate very long before writing into the Bill a requirement that it should be obliged to receive, and therefore to answer, any and every representation which might be made to it, even from local authorities.

After all, there are some 90 existing local authorities in the Greater London area and, while we would expect the staff commission to be accessible, we would also expect the Minister to act as a filter so as to see that the commission certainly replied to any representations from local authority associations or staff associations; and indeed we would expect there to be no need to require it to do so, because it would naturally do so; but, were it necessary, the Minister would be prepared to use his power to direct the staff commission that it should answer any particular type of representation which might be seen to be necessary.

However, to write into the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North would have us do by one of his Amendments, an obligation upon the staff commission to receive representations from any local authority or anybody connected with staff and therefore, if it is to be of any value, to reply to them, would be going too far.

In the same way, I fear that I cannot advise my hon. Friend to press the Amendment in tine 44, which would give the commission the power to operate the Minister as a trigger, as it were, to set off a direction. That would make the Minister the mere agent of the staff commission. We must leave the initiative the other way—that is, that the Minister shall have the power to make a direction either to the staff commission or to any local authority or group of local authorities if it seems proper to the Minister on the recommendation of the staff commission that he should do so.

I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington also laid some stress upon the right of appeal to the staff commission by those who might feel aggrieved. This is an important subject and I would expect to discuss this with the staff commission and to ask it to consider the mechanism which it would like to operate. I should not like to write into the Bill any particular provision at this stage before the staff commission is in action.

I hope that I have said enough to reassure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that this is a serious and determined project to protect the staff. I hope that I have convinced him that at this stage—before the staff commission has been nominated or has entered into informal life and, therefore, before it could have had discussions with the local authority and staff associations—it would be wrong to start putting into the Bill details of how it should function. I hope I have said enough to convince him that it will be set up rapidly in its informal shape, and that we are determined that it shall be shown to be operating fairly. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment and that so, also, will my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

Mr. Barter

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give an assurance about another point which might be considered by the staff commission? He said that certain officers employed in the services being transferred from the counties to the new London boroughs will be considered by the commission. Can he assure tit, that the commission will consider the position of those county officers at present in the service of the counties—clerks, and so on—and that they will be considered in a similar way?

Sir K. Joseph

Yes. I would expect the commission carefully to consider the position of the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred for some sort of similar treatment, though I should not like to go further before the commission has been established.

Mr. Skeffington

The Minister said that he expects that the commission would receive representations from the staff and local authorities. But suppose it does not. Is there any power, other than the Minister's direction—which is a clumsy and heavy-handed method—to ensure that this will happen?

Sir K. Joseph

This is the sort of issue that will have to be discussed with the staff associations when the staff commission enters upon its informal life, so as to influence the terms of reference which the commission will discuss with me. As a second line of protection, I should expect the staff associations to be able easily to make representations to the Minister to use his informal or formal influence on the commission. I think that there is no fear here, and I undertake to see to it that the commission, in its informal manifestation, will discuss this point with the staff and local authority associations.

Mr. M. Stewart

We have been slowly at work on this part of the Bill trying to make the staff commission a more effective body. In Committee Amendments from all quarters succeeded in making the existence of the commission a certainty instead of only a possibility. That was a considerable advance, but the fact that it needed to be made such left us a little disquieted about the Government's whole attitude.

I have a feeling that the Government think that this business of making arrangements with the staff will be much easier than it actually will be. That was shown because, in the first instance, they did not make it mandatory on the Minister to appoint the commission. Although that error has been rectified, the commission is still left with what I would describe as inadequate powers. It is in this connection that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), in line 48, at the end to insert a new subsection (5), would be particularly helpful.

Paragraph (a) of that Amendment in effect gives the commission power to get from local authorities certain information which it will need if it is to do its work properly. I cannot find anything in the Clause as it stands giving the commission power to get that information. The Minister can direct local authorities about implementing any advice given by the commission and can direct them to pay the expenses of the commission, but the quality of the advice the commission may give may depend, in the first place, on all the information being available to it. It is not clear in the Clause as it stands whether the commission has any power to require information or if it is just that the Minister has power to direct local authorities to give it.

If the Minister has such power it would be a rather clumsy way of doing it. It would be much more simple to give the commission power to require information from a local authority. It may be said that local authorities will not be unreasonable. Nevertheless, a local autho- rity might feel that it was being asked by the commission for a great deal of information, the supplying of which would impose much labour on the authority. Such an authority might consider such a request for information as being unreasonable. That is a matter on which differences of opinion might arise.

We have often heard Ministers, when replying to Questions in the House, say, "To answer the Question would involve an unnecessary amount of time and effort." Ministers must be in that position, I suppose, and no one can compel a Minister to give any kind of answer. I would have thought, however, that the staff commission should be a sufficiently strong and authoritative body to say, "There is certain information we require in order to do our work properly. With great respect to the local authority, we—the members of the commission—and not the local authority, must be the judges of what information we require".

The commission has not got that power under the Bill as it stands. I appreciate that its members might be able to go to the Minister and say, "We cannot get this information, will you please direct the local authority to give it", but even if that were done it would be a clumsy way around it.

Sir K. Joseph

Perhaps I might save the time of the House by saying that I do not think that the hon. Member need labour that point because I shall have no objection to offering to consider, at a later stage, whether power to obtain information should be written into the Bill. I am anxious not to shackle the operations of the staff commission. I do not want to go further but, having given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will drop that part of his argument and turn to his next subject.

Mr. Stewart

I, too, realise the right hon. Gentleman's need for progress, but this is a late stage of the Bill for him to be giving undertakings.

Sir K. Joseph

If the hon. Member intends to be ungracious about this sort of thing I would remind him that the Government gave an undertaking to set up the staff commission when the Bill is passed into law. It was only because hon. Members opposite wanted it made mandatory that, to save time, we did that. It was always intended that it should be set up. The hon. Member must know that at this stage the Government must listen to all the arguments adduced and occasionally change things. I think that the hon. Member is being rather ungracious.

Mr. Stewart

I am sorry if I gave the impression of being ungracious. It is possible that the Minister—perhaps not unnaturally after what we have been through—is getting rather cross. I feel like that myself sometimes. I certainly did not mean to be ungracious. It is true that the Government gave an undertaking to appoint the staff commission. None the less, the Committee insisted on writing "shall" instead of "may" into the Bill.

It was not only the suspicions of my hon. Friends, but those of hon. Members opposite, which led to that being done. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepted at that stage came from one of his hon. Friends. Thus it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who preferred the Government's undertakings to be in black and white rather than merely as their unsupported word. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is giving an undertaking. He has given an undertaking to look at this matter and to see whether it is possible, sensible and the rest of it to put this into the Bill. Nevertheless, I am within my rights in pointing out that this is a very late stage of the Bill at which to be giving undertakings.

A lot of undertakings have already been given. The Government are anxious, for obvious reasons, to get the Bill through in a given time. The Minister may give each one of those undertakings; but what will happen when he gets back to his office and totals up the undertakings he has given and considers the sheer amount of time that will be needed to fulfil them?

5.30 p.m.

To rub in why I think this matter important, I want to draw the attention of the House to an analogy. When we appoint a Select Committee for any important purpose, the Motion nearly always includes the words that the Committee should have power … to send for persons, papers and records … We consider that if a Select Committee is to do its work, it must have the power to require information. That is why I do not think that the Minister is quite up to the point when he says that he does not want to shackle the operation of the commission. This paragraph does not say that the commission has to do anything. It gives it power and it gives it scope, because the greater power one has to get information the more likely one is to be able to do the work freely. One is less shackled, not more.

Paragraph (b) depends on (a)—its purpose is merely to make (a) tolerable in its working—and the same applies to (c). But let the Minister now look at paragraph (d). I should have thought that this was an entirely reasonable provision. It does not shackle the commission's working at all. It might be said, perhaps, to shackle the local authorities but, after all, the whole point of this part of the Bill is that they shall be subject to certain conditions. The proposition is the quite reasonable one that local authorities shall not fill jobs from outside to the possible prejudice of people who are to be transferred from other authorities in the Greater London Area.

My hon. Friend, in his Amendment, quite properly makes an exception. He would allow local authorities to advertise with the approval of the Minister. One could well imagine circumstances—they would be rather exceptional circumstances, but they might well arise—in which one of the authorities might say, "It really is necessary for our work that we advertise this post. We cannot rely on its being adequately filled by the transfer of an employee from an existing authority." If the authority could make that case, the Minister could say, "Well, go ahead and advertise," but it is quite reasonable to say to the local authority, "You cannot do that unless it is a sufficiently special case for you to be able to persuade the Minister to give his approval." I therefore cannot think that there is anything unreasonable in (d).

Nor do I think that paragraph (e) in any way shackles the operation of the staff commission. Indeed, its whole nature is, as it were, to short circuit formalities, so that if one of the joint committees of existing authorities to be appointed under what will be Section 80 of the Act brings to birth a great scheme affecting the future of staff it can, if the scheme fulfils certain conditions, show it to the staff commission and so satisfy the commission that it has done its duty in the matter. Nobody could possibly say—if we want the commission to do any work at all—that there is anything objectionable in this. As I say, it short-circuits formalities.

If I criticised anything at all in paragraph (f) it would be the phrase: … shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London Borough Council … shall, so far as possible, fill such places … with people who are already holders of places. I am a little tempted to suggest to my hon. Friend that when he came to the final paragraph he was, perhaps, a little infected by the over-anxious drafting that the Minister always employs. Nevertheless, I cannot feel that it would do anyone any harm. It could not shackle anyone. It would merely remind those concerned that this is one of the things

that, within reason and possibility, they should make every effort to do.

The Minister went quite a way—I will be very gracious now—to agree with me over (a) which, I think, really carries (b) and (c) with it. Personally, I would not mind so much if (b) and (c) were out as long as (a) was in, but there are some, I think, who would like (b) and (c) in. Paragraph (d) is reasonable, and (e) might reduce formalities and so save time. Paragraph (f) is a strongly-worded pious hope that would be useful for creating the right atmosphere in which the commission could do its work. To what, in the whole of my hon. Friend's Amendment, can the Minister object? We really should ask him at this stage to accept it as part of the Bill.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 247.

Division No. 90.]	AYES	[5.37 p.m.
Ainsley, William	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Ledger, Ron
Albu, Austen	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Forman, J. C.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Bacon, Miss Allce	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lipton, Marcus
Barnett, Guy	Ginsburg, David	Loughlin, Charles
Beaney, Alan	Gourlay, Harry	Lubbock, Eric
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Greenwood, Anthony	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Benson, Sir George	Grey, Charles	McBride, N.
Blackburn, F.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McCann, John
Blyton, William	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacColl, James
Boardman, H.	Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	McInnes, James
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bowles, Frank	Gunter, Ray	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Boyden, James	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	McLeavy, Frank
Bradley, Tom	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Harper, Joseph	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brockway, Fenner A.	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hayman, F. H.	Manuel, Archie
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)	Mapp, Charles
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Marsh, Richard
Callaghan, James	Hilton, A. V.	Mason, Roy
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Holman, Percy	Mellish, R. J.
Chapman, Donald	Hooson, H. E.	Mendelson, J. J.
Cliffe, Michael	Houghton, Douglas	Millan, Bruce
Collick, Percy	Howell, Charles A. (Perry Bar)	Mitchtson, G. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Monslow, Walter
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hoy, James H.	Moody, A. S.
Crosland, Anthony	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Morris, John
Dalyell, Tam		Moyle, Arthur
Darling, George	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Mulley, Frederick
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Neal, Harold
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hunter, A. E.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Oram, A. E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Oswald, Thomas
Deer, George	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Owen, Will
Delargy, Hugh	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Padley, W. E,
Dempsey, James	Jeger, George	Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Dodds, Norman	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pargiter, G. A.
Donnelly, Desmond	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Pavitt, Laurence
Driberg, Tom	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Peart, Frederick
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pentland, Norman
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Keller, Richard	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Finch, Harold	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Fitch, Alan	King, Dr. Horace	Probert, Arthur
Fletcher, Eric	Lawson, George	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Reynolds, G. W.	Spriggs, Leslie	Wainwright, Edwin
Rhodes, H.	Steele, Thomas	Warbey, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Watkins, Tudor
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Stonehouse, John	Weitzman, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Stones, William	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. pancras, N.)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John	White, Mrs. Eirene
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)	Whitlock, William
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Swain, Thomas	Wilkins, W. A.
Ross, William	Swingler, Stephen	Willey, Frederick
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)	Symonds, J. B.	Williams, Lt. (Abertillery)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Taverne, D.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Short, Edward	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Winterbottom, R. E.
Skeffington, Arthur	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)	Woof, Robert
Small, William	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Snow, Julian	Thornton, Ernest	Zilliacus, K.
Sorensen, R. W.	Timmons, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Tomney, Frank	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Duncan, Sir James	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Aitken, W. T.	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kerby, Capt. Henry
Allason, James	Elliott, R. W.(N'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Emery, Peter	Kimball, Marcus
Atkins, Humphrey	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Kirk, Peter
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Kitson, Timothy
Balniel, Lord	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Leavey, J. A.
Barlow, Sir John	Farr, John	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Barter, John	Fell, Anthony	Litley, F. J, P.
Batsford, Brian	Finlay, Graeme	Lindsay, Sir Martin
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Linstead, Sir Hugh
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Forrest, George	Litchfield, Capt. John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Longden, Gilbert
Berkeley, Humphry	Freeth, Denzil	Loveys, Walter H.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bidgood, John C.	Gammans, Lady	Mac Arthur, Ian
Bitten, John	George, Sir John (Pollok)	McLaren, Martin
Biggs-Davison, John	Gibson-Watt, David	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Bingham, R. M.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Bishop, F. P.	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Black, Sir Cyril	Goodhew, Victor	McMaster, Stanley R.
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Gower, Raymond	Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Bourne-Arton, A.	Grant-Ferris, R.	Maginnis, John E.
Box, Donald	Green, Alan	Marshall, Douglas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	Gresham Cooke, R.	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Mawby, Ray
Braine, Bernard	Gurden, Harold	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Brewis, John	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Mills, Stratton
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Montgomery, Fergus
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Bryan, Paul	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Bullard, Denys	Hastings, Stephen	Neave, Airey
Burden, F. A.	Hay, John	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel	Nugsent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Oakshot, Sir Hendrie
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Hendry, Forbes	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charlea (Luton)	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Cary, Sir Robert	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Channon, H. P. G.		Page, Graham (Crosby)
Chataway, Christopher	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Hobson, Sir John	Partridge, E.
Cleaver, Leonard	Hocking, Philip N.	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Cole, Norman	Holland, Philip	Peel, John
Cooke, Robert	Hollingworth, John	Percival, Ian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Hopkins, Alan	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cordle, John	Hornby, R. P.	Pitman, Sir James
Corfield, F. V.	Hornaby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Pott, Percivall
Costain, A. P.	Howard, John (Southampton, Test)	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Coulson, Michael	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Hughes-Young, Michael	Prior, J. M. L.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Critchley, Julian	Iremonger, T. L.	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cunningham, Knox	Irvine, Bryan Godman (Rye)	Ramsden, James
Curran, Charles	James, David	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Dance, James	Jennings, J. C.	Rees, Hugh
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Renton, Rt. Hon. David
de Ferranti, Basil	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Ridsdale, Julian
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Drayson, G. B.	Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

Robson Brown, Sir William	Storey, Sir Samuel	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Studholme, Sir Henry	Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Roots, William	Tapseil, Peter	Walker, Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)	Wall, Patrick
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss side)	Ward, Dame Irene
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan	Temple, John M.	Webster, David
Seymour, Leslie	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Sharpies, Richard	Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Shaw, M.	Thomas, Peter (Conway)	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Shepherd, William	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Sheet, T. H. H.	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin	Wise, A. R.
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Woodhouse, C. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander	Turner, Colin	Woodnutt, Mark
Speir, Rupert	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.	Woollam, John
Stanley, Hon. Richard	Tweedsmuir, Lady	Worsley, Marcus
Stevens, Geoffrey	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)	Vane, W. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES;
Stodart, J. A.	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mr. Michael Hamilton and
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	Vickers, Miss Joan	Mr Pym.